Famine
I think we're possibly judging vectradriver on a point he isn't making.
His point isn't that American cars blow - though obviously they do - but that the typical car made in Europe is a more interesting drive than the typical car made in the US. Not necessarily faster or more powerful, but a better place to be and to drive.
Can you honestly disagree with that?
I'm going to disagree here on a couple of levels:
- His point IS that American cars blow. He clearly stated that, categorically, American cars are bad. All American cars are inferior to European and Japanese products in capability, design, and build.
- His point never touched on typical European cars at all (which, in fact, I pointed out earlier in one of these threads). He insisted on holding up several stellar examples (such as the M3) and saying that American cars could never match that quality or capability.
- I also honestly disagree that the AVERAGE European car is notably better than the AVERAGE American car to drive.
Famine
Each region still produces really good cars and really bad cars, but pulling random examples out of the air isn't helpful when it's the average that's really the issue. Our crap is still crap. Your brilliant is still brilliant. Nothing can change this.
But his point - certainly as he put it across - is that most American cars are crap, and
there are no brilliant American cars at all.
Famine
Now, the best person to ask here is Duke. Can you state, hand-on-heart, that any of the top 10 US-market, US-company cars offer the same level of driver satisfaction as your 3-series?
Well, I can't comment on many of the cars you mentioned in your earlier list, such as the Peugeots, Citroens, and the UK GM products. Of course I've never driven them. On our visit to England we were given a 5-door Civic as our hire car, which was exceptional in its unexceptionalness. But I read
evo with fair regularity, and I find their comments about the "average" European cars they do in the short takes pretty much line up with the comments given on "average" American cars by the American enthusiast magazines I read (
C/D, GRM, both in terms of driving experience and interior environment. Judging from the photos I see things to love and things to hate on both sides of the equation. Of course, these are enthusiast magazines and they mostly test enthusiast models, but none of them completely ignore the regular models either.
In literal answer to your question, NO, none of the US-engineered cars offer the same level of driver satisfaction. But it's rather an unfair question. My 3-series has the sport package, which includes stiffer suspension and different steering weighting, among other things. It also benefits significantly from its balanced RWD layout - which, I will note, is
NOT shared by most of the European "average" cars that you put forth above. [More on this later.]
In late 2004 we bought the Acura TSX (halfway between the plain Euro Accord and the Accord Type R of yore) for my wife, which involved testdriving a number of cars. Earlier this year, I bought my 325i, which also involved test driving a number of cars. All I can do is offer my subjective opinions on those drives.
While shopping for my wife's car, we drove the following:
- MINI (not an S)
- Saab 9-3 convertible
- Chrysler Sebring convertible
- Chrysler GT Cruiser convertible
- Ford Mustang GT convertible
- Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder V6
- Audi A4 1.8T quattro
- Subaru WRX
- Honda Accord V6 coupe and sedan
- Nissan Altima (I think it was a 3.5 SL)
- Acura TSX
Some of these cars were used, some new, and some previous-year leftovers - this was at the very end of the 2004 model year. All were buyable in the $23k-$27k USD range as driven. All were 2003 or 2004 models. All cars had automatic transmissions. We settled on the TSX because it offered the best combination of features, space/comfort, driving experience, price, and newness.
The most fun to drive of all was the V8 Mustang GT. It offered the best combination of power, handling, and sheer hoot-to-driveness. It was also very affordable as a 2004 leftover. The main thing that prevented us from buying it was lack of interior room. If we were repeating this process this year, the first place we would stop would be the new-model Mustang GT convertible.
Next up was probably a tie between the 9-3 and the GT Cruiser, both of which were turbo 4s. The Saab got a
small edge in handling and the Chrysler GT got a
moderate edge in power delivery; these two were quite evenly tied all over in terms of driving experience and interior quality. The GT was a little roomier but the trunk was more awkward to use.
The Accord, Altima, Sebring, Eclipse, and WRX rounded out the pack in approximately that order. All were quite decent to drive, but all were also distinctly non-involving and none had a standout quality that really made up for other shortcomings (subjectively and objectively noted). The WRX in particular was underwhelming: admittedly, it was an auto box, but so was the Saab, which made MUCH more effective use of a 2.0 litre turbo 4 than the WRX did. The WRX also had far and away the cheapest and plainest interior.
Two European cars for which we had high hopes were the MINI and the A4, but both disappointed us enough to pass them by.
The MINI was fun, much like a puppy. It was eager to play, bouncy, and extremely cute. And just like a puppy, it got tired too easily - it was very hampered by its CVT transmission and small displacement. Admittedly we knew going into the dealer that it would likely prove too small to work for a family of 4, and we were not surprised to confirm that. However, it was also NOT CHEAP for what it offered. Getting the
S package would have given it more stamina, but also clicked it up into
REALLY NOT CHEAP territory.
The A4 quattro exuded Teutonic quality and seriousness - it was the polar opposite of the MINI. No humour at all in driving it. It cornered and braked well enough to have my wife grabbing the panic handles during our designated testdrive stage, but it gave very little reward or feedback. It would stolidly do what it was ordered to do, but nothing more, and it refused to get personal. And frankly, the 1.8T engine was awful. Unlike the reserved but capable chassis, the drivetrain was loud and distracting, but very weak. After the Audi experience we figured that a Volkswagen would be approximately the same all around, except slightly less so, and we skipped the Jetta/Passat drive.
My wife represents a good driver who values driving enjoyment highly, but who doesn't share a hardcore enthusiast's willingness to put up with practical or aesthetic shortcomings in pursuit of one elusive quality. As you can see, we drove a wide cross section of cars from American, European, and Japanese makers. The best all-arounder (which we eventually bought) was Japanese, but the fun-to-drive cars were from all three parts of the globe. And there were true disappointments from all segments. But truthfully, as I've maintained all along, the average cars from all parts of the globe were - guess what? - quite average.
I've got to go but I'll be back to detail my impressions of the cars auditioned for my purchase later.
...the huge numbers of fleet-sold barges skews the numbers a bit. And in Japan or Asia? One zillion 1.3 liter Corolla and Kia taxis with virtually nothing in them but seats means you're permanently immersed in the "noise" of average cars.
.
