[Stealth]

i mean don't get me wrong.  i'm a big fan of imports and european cars, etc.  but to say that American cars suck, is just dumb, and that seems to be the general concensus among NON-AMERICANS (ironic, isn't it?).

i drive a mitsubishi to work every day, because it looks decent on the outside, and it gets good gas mileage, and it's been a hell of a reliable car too


i drive this on weekends of when i want a change:


and i'm getting ready to buy this.


so see?  i'm not biased i drive american AND foreign cars

[Roanoke]

there a few euro-hatches on the previous page but I share you're distaste of the modern hatchback (though for different reasons).

calling people "kid" is bloody annoying too, while we're at it.  :


I've just picked my latest daily driver. No dounbt you lot will love it heh heh

Is it some form of Manta, perchance?

maybe......

[Black Wolf]

the thing that bugs me, is most of you, and more than likely Mika too, are going to live your lives dreaming of these great European cars that you're defending, but at the end of the day, you're going to still be driving a boxy hatchback.  that's the difference.  you won't FIND average people driving the cars you're so passionately defending.  drive around london and see how many you find.  maybe 1%, if that, are these stylish european cars.  the rest aren't.  the difference is over here the average joe can drive one of the cars i'm defending.  cadillacs, lexus, etc.  you don't have to be the 1% to drive them. 

therefore as ugly and terrible as American cars may be, at least i'm defending something that almost any member of the population can drive.  whereas to you it's just cars you dream of driving.

And the relevance here is... what exactly? You're still passionately defending big, ugly over flashy boxy 50s yank tanks as superior to the european cars of the day, which is what the original argument was about.

And for the record, I'll not be driving a European car when I graduate, or a boxy hatchback. I'm planning on getting an Australian car, one of these:



It's got the performance of any modern American Muscle car, handles better (particularly if I'm willing to forgoe the awesome uteiness and go for the sedan, with the proper suspension), practical, reasonably priced (brand new, the entry level is just a touch over 40000 AUD) and, since its only got two seats, I'll never be asked to be the designated driver. Perfect

[Stealth]

And the relevance here is... what exactly? You're still passionately defending big, ugly over flashy boxy 50s yank tanks as superior to the european cars of the day, which is what the original argument was about.
and so far, i don't think anyone's posted up a car IN THE SAME CLASS as the cadillac in the first post.  that's just my opinion
And for the record, I'll not be driving a European car when I graduate, or a boxy hatchback. I'm planning on getting an Australian car, one of these:


that's a nice looking truck.  but talk is cheap; tell me when you actually get it.  how old are you by the way?

one thing i'd like to point out about that thing though, as nice as it looks, the fronto end looks like it belongs on a car.  maybe that's just because i'm used to seeing trucks having sharp edges, flat 'faces' and grills, as opposed to styled and stretched like a car

EDIT: i just realized.  i'm sure the difference between "car" and "truck" as used in America is not as the rest of the world understands it.  Over here, a 'truck' is anything with a bed at the back.  a "car" is anything that doesn't, but isn't a SUV, etc..  But I know in South Africa, a "truck" was the equivalent here to a semi.  an 18 wheeler.


It's got the performance of any modern American Muscle car, handles better (particularly if I'm willing to forgoe the awesome uteiness and go for the sedan, with the proper suspension), practical, reasonably priced (brand new, the entry level is just a touch over 40000 AUD) and, since its only got two seats, I'll never be asked to be the designated driver. Perfect
yes it looks nice, but i disagree with the "handlingl better".  there aren't many trucks that "handle better" than cars, due mostly to the lack of weight at the rear end.  sometimes it's possible to overcome that with AWD or FWD, but you're still risking fishtailing when you have no weight back there.  performance is another thing i question... in fact, i'd race my Cadillac CTS-V against your truck/car in the picture, any day of the week and guarantee i'd win   That's one thing that makes the CTS-V so awesome, and even many European fans love it...... because it doesn't just have the brute force of a 400HP LS2, it can also handle like a European sports car.  watch Top Gear's demo of it.

[aldo_14]

I just think the Lexus is hideously ugly and, going by what I've read (caveat - of earlier models), not that great a car compared to its competitors.  Granted, I've not been in one (er, I think - racking my brains here), but I don't have to have been in, say, a Jag to prefer it.
i don't think they're that ugly.  some of them, maybe, but there are a lot of good looking Lexus models, and i'm seeing more and more of them

Don't knock boxy hatchbacks (especially as they can be a ****load more stylish than many 4-doors)...
that's not the point.  i have yet to see anyone (in this thread, or any "european vs. american cars" discussion) start posting pictures of an ugly, box-like hatchback.  they're fast to post up jaguars, lamborghinis, etc.  but you don't see pictures posted of 99% of the cars that are driven

 plus, you'd be surprised how many people would and do pick a 'boxy hatchback' over a larger car such as the americans prefer because the former is nippier, more fun, and more efficient.  Such as myself; if I buy a 4 door, it'll be because I have kids to take to the footie, not for driving choice.
actually i think people choose the "boxy hatchback" over the sleek, slick EUROPEAN (not american) cars they brag about so much, simply because they can't afford them. or they aren't practical

EDIT; kind of should point out that what might be termed 'tasteful' 4-doors are still pretty popular and certainly driven by more than 1% of the population. 
not in my experience.  i only saw a handful in the 2 weeks i was in london, spain, and italy

Aside from the lexus matter-of-taste thing.... I don't know about where you went in Spain or Italy, but London doesn't exactly give a representation of national car buying.  Hell, if you look at my street, there's a goodly number of 4-doors, with hatchbacks restricted to being 2nd cars (or, in my case, 2nd and 3rd).   If you were in London, I'm amazed you didn't get the impression 4x4s were the dominant species   (Actually, I've been to London, although only to the financial district on work, and I can't say I've noticed a majority, let alone overwhelming one, of hatchbacks).

A quick check, indeed, finds that superminis are the best selling class of car - but only take ~30% - in europe.

 In any case, there are 2 points here.  firstly, I don't think hatchbacks are boxy atall, and I'm not sure where you get that impression (name one boxy non-70s hatchback, please); in general, I'd say they are far nicer than 4 door family-cars such as the ones you're suggesting.  Secondly, I don't think there can be any doubt hatchbacks are better for everyday driving, because they are cheaper to buy and run and easier to park.  I'd also stick my neck out and say they are more better suited, performance wise, to city driving (smaller, more agile and in some cases faster accelerating - slower, yes, but does that matter in a european city or town?)

I'd just also add that, with regards to the Cadillac, I've never liked that car.  It's a very cultural thing, I think, much the same as I'd far rather have an e-type.  After all, it's not just which classic car you want, it's which type.

[Taristin]

Im also not a fan of the "real car" posted in this thread. Quite frankly, if I wanted a classic car It'd either be a Toyota 2000GT or a restored Mustang Convertible (like I used to have [1969], sans restored). Though I must say the classic Jag's were very nice.

[Mika]

sorry, i just saw this and had to point it out, because i literally laughed out loud.

Which is exactly why I put it there in the first place. You could have attached "in my opinion" to the title, but you had to make it a universal truth. This actually shows you are extending your own concept of "real car" elsewhere and expecting it to be universal. And I do find that a little offensive! Do not expect to get away from it without someone pointing it out to you. Granted, this was a hard lesson for me in China, I have grown in environment which respects those who play fair and are honest and thus I cannot understand how a society could work without them. Suffice to say, it was a bad thing that I expected this elsewhere. It is hard to admit that even these things what I always thought to be basic pillars of human kind are not so sturdy basis elsewhere. But getting a close call situation makes you think. Currently I'm nursing a broken knuckle.

Show me where I especially constrained the text to American cars. More over, by reading through it again it would seem that I said nothing negative about American cars, did I? I also realised you have not checked out the links I have provided. Then you would know where I am located. But because it seems that my points are getting lost, maybe I should try a different approach?

To make it short, my addition to your equation would be:
Low mileage = collector's dream = garage decoration

Which is even more ironic when you said that the car can M O V E.
But yes, now I understand why people want to cough so much dough for those things, that's the most expensive piece of furniture they will ever buy! Granted, even I would like to have a comfortable, air-conditioned, low mileage sofa!

Seriously, have you ever considered the possibility that these things what you call luxury might not be luxury somewhere else? Or more so, that they might be meaningless elsewhere? This is the another reason why I posted the links to cars which have actually M O V E D. It is the engineering work of those cars that I respect and thought that there would be interested people here in this thread, considering the longevity of those things.

Given that the car is using the power provided by a controlled explosion, even the starting point is interesting and I find many fascinating engineering solutions inside car engines and transmissions. Moreover, I actually think there is a grain of truth behind the cubic inch mania in American cars - which was one of the points in bringing the truck example. It is the torque, not the RPMs, that makes those things work. However, considering the response, it seems we are not going to talk about them. Which is fine for me.

Take so trivial thing as automatic gears for example. Most of the cars sold in USA have automatic transmissions, yet here most of the cars are manual. Since you know cars well and sound like you have driven quite much around (and there are certainly areas which resemble the climate of this Nordic Country in USA), you can probably tell why is it so? Note that the price difference of 3000 € does not explain it in my opinion - luxury is luxury, right? And add there a technical question, I have actually been wondering which one is cheaper to produce, a manual or an automatic and why?

Bob-san, about the car picture where you commented about salt, does that car have spikes in its tires? If the eyes are not deceiving me, it doesn't seem to have them. So are friction tires common there during winter time?

Mika

[vyper]

Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?

[aldo_14]

Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?

I can only presume he's confused by the hatch bit.

[Taristin]

Hatchbacks, or Scion xB's?

My RSX is a hatchback. The xB is a box with wheels.

[Bob-san]

To make it short, my addition to your equation would be:
Low mileage = collector's dream = garage decoration

Which is even more ironic when you said that the car can M O V E.
But yes, now I understand why people want to cough so much dough for those things, that's the most expensive piece of furniture they will ever buy! Granted, even I would like to have a comfortable, air-conditioned, low mileage sofa!

Seriously, have you ever considered the possibility that these things what you call luxury might not be luxury somewhere else? Or more so, that they might be meaningless elsewhere? This is the another reason why I posted the links to cars which have actually M O V E D. It is the engineering work of those cars that I respect and thought that there would be interested people here in this thread, considering the longevity of those things.

Given that the car is using the power provided by a controlled explosion, even the starting point is interesting and I find many fascinating engineering solutions inside car engines and transmissions. Moreover, I actually think there is a grain of truth behind the cubic inch mania in American cars - which was one of the points in bringing the truck example. It is the torque, not the RPMs, that makes those things work. However, considering the response, it seems we are not going to talk about them. Which is fine for me.

Take so trivial thing as automatic gears for example. Most of the cars sold in USA have automatic transmissions, yet here most of the cars are manual. Since you know cars well and sound like you have driven quite much around (and there are certainly areas which resemble the climate of this Nordic Country in USA), you can probably tell why is it so? Note that the price difference of 3000 € does not explain it in my opinion - luxury is luxury, right? And add there a technical question, I have actually been wondering which one is cheaper to produce, a manual or an automatic and why?

Bob-san, about the car picture where you commented about salt, does that car have spikes in its tires? If the eyes are not deceiving me, it doesn't seem to have them. So are friction tires common there during winter time?

Mika

Our '56 Caddy has MOVED ; its now an expensive sofa with many miles on it.

We use a bit bulkier tires (I jokingly call them square tires) in winter. You see, we have paved streets pretty much everywhere we go, from our drive ways, to our smallest service roads, to everything else. Pretty much everything is paved, plowed, and salted. We generally use chains in the few unpaved areas, and theyre only good for low-speeds.

Its pointless to have spikes on a suburb or city car here.

Its cheaper to make manuals, we use autos because theyre easier to drive; most people would rather have the shifter ignored for the most part; gives em more tiem to be distracted with the radio and climate controls.

[Mika]

Quote from Bob-san:
Our '56 Caddy has MOVED ; its now an expensive sofa with many miles on it.

I think we established a common understanding now.

How much ice do you get yearly? In early or late autumns, depending on the case when the Weather Man says it's snow, we have this devious black ice which cannot be noticed from the car, the only warning is that you know it has been below zero last night and there is a possibility of its existence. It's certain type of ice which has formed just on top of the pavement, thin but sturdy layer and it repeats the roughness of the pavement.

When I just had got the driver's license, I borrowed a car of my friend's father. We did some 100 km and then turned up a ro highway ramp. The bastard was frozen with the black ice, I was doing something like 80 km/h (50 mph) and the ramp was heavily curved. The car had no ABS, so had to do the slowing down manually without losing control. If that would have crashed, it would have been a bad thing (TM).

There is another case of interesting times, this time in Spring when the snow cover starts to melt. The roads are also melting, or the ice on top of it to be specific, in best parts there is almost polished class mirror ice and then some thin layer of water on top of it. During the wild college years, I had this urge to go through one of that with the speed of 140 km/h (87.5 mph). I don't recommend the experience for any one. But that's about all the stupid stuff I have myself done (= me being the driver) in a car. If you don't count the slow-speed crashing with your own trailer, that is... 

In downtown, the spikes are almost a necessity when the ice gets polished in the crossroads area. But you use chains? They are used in tractors here, but nowhere else. The another type of tire is the friction tire, where the contact friction has been maximized. I have been driving with those a couple of years, they are surprisingly suitable. The only place where the difference can be noticed is the downtown area.

Mika

[Bob-san]

We generally get ice on everything but the roads... they have chemical formulas that are said to melt the ice then evaporate harmlessly...

We get black ice occasionally, the rocksalt generally keeps that low at most places, though it still happens after large storms. Within 2 days of even blizzards we have clear and dry roads. Chains are used on unpaved roads out of civilization (Vermont), cause theyre easily taken off for when you return to civilization (new york).

We start to get ice in fall, but it is rarely a factor; we waste so much money coating the streets with salt. Dont expect ice on any road in a major city, unless you drive right after a storm.
For us, non-issue.

[Roanoke]

And the relevance here is... what exactly? You're still passionately defending big, ugly over flashy boxy 50s yank tanks as superior to the european cars of the day, which is what the original argument was about.
and so far, i don't think anyone's posted up a car IN THE SAME CLASS as the cadillac in the first post.  that's just my opinion
And for the record, I'll not be driving a European car when I graduate, or a boxy hatchback. I'm planning on getting an Australian car, one of these:


that's a nice looking truck.  but talk is cheap; tell me when you actually get it.  how old are you by the way?

one thing i'd like to point out about that thing though, as nice as it looks, the fronto end looks like it belongs on a car.  maybe that's just because i'm used to seeing trucks having sharp edges, flat 'faces' and grills, as opposed to styled and stretched like a car

EDIT: i just realized.  i'm sure the difference between "car" and "truck" as used in America is not as the rest of the world understands it.  Over here, a 'truck' is anything with a bed at the back.  a "car" is anything that doesn't, but isn't a SUV, etc..  But I know in South Africa, a "truck" was the equivalent here to a semi.  an 18 wheeler.


It's got the performance of any modern American Muscle car, handles better (particularly if I'm willing to forgoe the awesome uteiness and go for the sedan, with the proper suspension), practical, reasonably priced (brand new, the entry level is just a touch over 40000 AUD) and, since its only got two seats, I'll never be asked to be the designated driver. Perfect
yes it looks nice, but i disagree with the "handlingl better".  there aren't many trucks that "handle better" than cars, due mostly to the lack of weight at the rear end.  sometimes it's possible to overcome that with AWD or FWD, but you're still risking fishtailing when you have no weight back there.  performance is another thing i question... in fact, i'd race my Cadillac CTS-V against your truck/car in the picture, any day of the week and guarantee i'd win   That's one thing that makes the CTS-V so awesome, and even many European fans love it...... because it doesn't just have the brute force of a 400HP LS2, it can also handle like a European sports car.  watch Top Gear's demo of it.

that isn't serious "truck" in the pratical sense. You'd never see one on a building site. It's more of a funny looking performance car (Ford Falcon ?). I'd guessing it can carry only a small amount of payload, liike the 80s GMC Syclone performance truck ?

In my experience, guessing which car is "fastest" is usually a pointless argument. There's no way in hell I'd let someone drive my car in the manner required to match the offical 0-60 times, for example.

And I doubt you're statement about the Caddy handling like a "european sports car". No full size saloon will handle like a sports car.

[Stealth]

that isn't serious "truck" in the pratical sense. You'd never see one on a building site. It's more of a funny looking performance car (Ford Falcon ?). I'd guessing it can carry only a small amount of payload, liike the 80s GMC Syclone performance truck ?
yeah well you'd never see a Cadillac Escalade EXT on a construction site, yet they're still called "Trucks" here.  anything with a bed is *shrugs*

And I doubt you're statement about the Caddy handling like a "european sports car". No full size saloon will handle like a sports car.
your*

are you talking out of experience?  or just pulling that opinion out of your ass...
according to Top Gear, which Brits swear by apparently (and Americans hate, because they generally bash American cars), here are the numbers the cadillac got against other cars on the Nurburgring (<=== the mother of courses)
1 minute, 33 seconds... beating out the S60R, etc.  and hey, wait, this is an American SEDAN!!! wow   even that Top Gear host couldn't fault the suspension and handling of the CTS-V
reference:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yzCRCAG9s&mode=related&search=

[Stealth]

Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?

yeah, i've seen those, but in London, 99% of the cars i saw looked like this:

in my opinion that's ugly as sin, boxy, eyesore, etc.  i associate hatchbacks such as this one, with europe and asia.  not too fond of them.

Which is even more ironic when you said that the car can M O V E.

Why is it ironic?  You take a 60s Ford Shelby, with a handful of miles on it, showroom condition.  WE ALL KNOW that thing can M-O-V-E, but how many owners take their classic, multi-million dollar collector cars down to the track?  not many.  So just because a car's in showroom condition, doesn't mean it's not able to move, or wasn't able to move back when it was a daily-driver at some point.  wow - never thought i'd have to explain that to someone.

Seriously, have you ever considered the possibility that these things what you call luxury might not be luxury somewhere else

Yes, but i'm not going to post disclaimers on every thread i post stating that "the content is soley the OPINION of the author", etc.  God damn man, this is the internet.  if i say something, don't look at it as signed in blood.  how many posts in this forum, or any forum in the world are based on fact.  hardly any... usually it's the OPINION of the author. good lord

[aldo_14]

Hang on - most hatchbacks are boxy? You have seen the UK Ford Focus? Or even something lower market like a Kia Rio? Or a Fiat Grande Punto (like I posted)? Vauxhall Astra?

yeah, i've seen those, but in London, 99% of the cars i saw looked like this:

in my opinion that's ugly as sin, boxy, eyesore, etc.  i associate hatchbacks such as this one, with europe and asia.  not too fond of them.

When were you in London - 1985?

[vyper]

Wow, old 306. My mate had one of them - the radiator used to piss water.

[Roanoke]

that isn't serious "truck" in the pratical sense. You'd never see one on a building site. It's more of a funny looking performance car (Ford Falcon ?). I'd guessing it can carry only a small amount of payload, liike the 80s GMC Syclone performance truck ?
yeah well you'd never see a Cadillac Escalade EXT on a construction site, yet they're still called "Trucks" here.  anything with a bed is *shrugs*

And I doubt you're statement about the Caddy handling like a "european sports car". No full size saloon will handle like a sports car.
your*

are you talking out of experience?  or just pulling that opinion out of your ass...
according to Top Gear, which Brits swear by apparently (and Americans hate, because they generally bash American cars), here are the numbers the cadillac got against other cars on the Nurburgring (<=== the mother of courses)
1 minute, 33 seconds... beating out the S60R, etc.  and hey, wait, this is an American SEDAN!!! wow   even that Top Gear host couldn't fault the suspension and handling of the CTS-V
reference:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yzCRCAG9s&mode=related&search=

it's not all about speed, kid.

edit: Nurburgring in 1:33 ?  obviously not the full size circuit then. Even a Porsche 956 can't break the 4 minute barrier.

edit again: actually, are we talking sports saloons or actual sports cars ?

[Stealth]

edit again: actually, are we talking sports saloons or actual sports cars ?

how about 4 door sedans that perform like actual sports cars...

EDIT: and i'm wrong, sorry.  they designed the car on the Nurburgring, but Top Gear TESTED it on some seperate track i guess... either way i just saw the numbers, and the chart with the other competitors' numbers.

it's not all about speed, kid.

i know it's not... which is why i didn't post 0-60 or 1/4 mile times... i posted handling times on circuits with corners