Pros and Cons of American sporties

In which aspect do you think American sportcars have the advantage vs. European sportcars and viceversa??

American cars have a taste all their own, the booming deep exhausts, tire twisting torque, rugged beasts, dollar for dollar, no one else gives you more power, and usually there is a lot of room to tune an american car. Hanlding on american cars is nearly always inferior, in both numbers and feel to euro cars. american build quality is below that of eurocars, and eurocars nearly always have vastly superior interiors and fit and finish. Let's lay it down like this, European cars are more expensive, but have more of "the total package"

American sports cars are all about what's underneath the hood, whereas European cars seem to find a good balance between engine and suspension. European sports cars are flashy, yet quiet, while American sports cars range from very flashy to rather subtle. Take for instance, the Dodge Viper, or the late seventies Trans Ams, with large bright decals all over the place, and the fox body Mustang, which, at least in my opinion, resembles the Escort of the same era. European sports cars are usually very aggressive, yet graceful, such as the BMW Z series, or any Porsche. I personally prefer American cars just because, in most cases, they're cheaper to buy and maintain, and they tend to be easier to work on.

i agree, american cars may not always be very classy, or classic looking. We have huge engines under the hood because the engines don't really work that well for their size. It is cheaper to make a big crude engine than a small and sophisticated one. That explains the big engines and the low prices. European cars seem to be better put together. A corvette handles pretty well, but I take your point for sure.

I love the refinement of the European cars. However, consider one advantage of American cars. An American car with big displacement it is relatively simple to enhance the vehicle and make it a true supercar, whereas European cars have smaller engines and have been refined to such a state that there is little that can be refined further. You can make a mustang, corvette or viper have 100HP per liter with a little work. Maybe this is my shortcoming but you can never have too much power. I also find it appealing that a mustang with a little work can crush a viper. One can not say that for a porsche or BMW.

alright. my weakly little 318i. I have full intentions by summers end to have a dynoed 180hp to 1.8L - at 6,250rpms - and still get better than 25mph on average. That is room to tune. That is also naturally aspirated. I know its possible because I've seen it done. The only way a stang, vette, or viper gets close to 100hp/l is with some sort of forced aspiration. I think there is plenty of room in european cars.

An M5 for example, the very example of a totally tuned up sports sedan - no more power left right - 80hp/l stock at 6,600rpms.

Steve dinan redid the intake, the exhaust, the computer, the runners, headers, and valve-timing, and got 76 more horsepower, that makes a grand total of 470hp @ 7,200rpms - from a 4.9L V8 - no forced aspiration required.

More impressive yet is that it runs 4.1 second 0-60, vs 4.1 on Z06 and 4.0 on viper, and beats them both in the quarter. This is again - a 4,000lb sedan.

That is room to tune.

Who cares what the hp/l is of an engine? Does it really matter or is it just an arguement that guys who have cars that can't make the power or torque use to justify their tiny engines? I'd rather have a huge torque curve, lot's of power, and a lower compression engine that is not stressed than some peaky, torqueless, engine that is overstressed (but smaller!!)

the torque curve on say, the 3.2L I6 in the BMW M3 E46 is damn close to untouchable, torque comes on low, is nearly flat, peaking at 4,500 - halfway throught the revs, and never looses it. That engine is good for over 100hp/l. I'll tell you why you would care, bigger engines are heavier. Heavier disturbs handling. A corvette just isn't as flingable as say, an ///M Roadster, mostly because it has the mass of a large V8 sitting up front, doesn't matter if it is 50:50 because you have mass forward of the front axle, which has negative mechanical advantage when the car turns.

BMW's 3.2 is high compression, it isn't peaky, and is generally a hell of an engine. I fail to see a drawback to it.

American cars have traditionally been built for American roads, long, with a minimum of tight twists. " Cruising " capability has always been important. They are built on sound, simple priciples no matter how out dated. They are traditionally very rugged and simple to work on. They are also rather large because Americans love to carry all their junk with them wherever they go.

European cars are more somber, lacking the colorful bravado inherent in American cars. The Europeans are all about details, precise and tight tolerances, also the roads can be quite different in those countries ans so they are built to specialize in different tasks.

That said, I am very happy that I am an all around car lover and can see and appreciate the value of many cars no matter where they came from. :P

So what do you think of a midship engine placement such as the viper's where the engine sits behind the front axle?