From: jim@mwhhlaw (James P. Cavanaugh III)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: American engines oversized,underpowered ?
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:06:25 GMT
Organization: Martin_Wade_Hartley_&_Hollingsworth

In article <1992Apr16.125337.3943@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>  
kerrat@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Adrian T Kerr) writes:
> In Britain it is widely believed that American's drive oversized cars  
with
> ridiculously huge engines. Since I know that recently the Honda  
accord (perhaps
> known as something different in America) was the number 1 selling  
American
> car ,and Japanese cars are becomeing more popular in America , are  
engine sizes
> of typical family saloons getting smaller?
>
Yes and no.  In the late 70's and early 80's, in response to a  
decontrol of gasoline prices and distribution, fuel prices increased  
dramatically.  Engine and vehicle size decreased just as dramatically.   
But as the free market worked it's magic and brought fuel prices back  
to where they should have been all along, engine size (or at least,  
output) and vehicle size have been on the increase.  For example, take  
the big Ford.  By 1978, an LTD was a 4000 lb. sedan on a 121 inch  
wheelbase. It was typically powered by a V8 engine ranging from 351 to  
400 to 460 cubic inches.  City driving got you about 8-10 mpg, maybe  
16-18 on the highway.  In 1979, wheelbase was shortened to 114 inches  
(about that of a 1949 Ford) and the car lost several hundred pounds in  
weight.  Typical engines were still V8s, but were mostly 302 cubic  
inches (5.0 litres), rated at about 130 horsepower, or somewhere close.   
Today, the derivative of that car is about the same size as the 79  
model, but gets better fuel mileage and performance with a V8 of 4.6  
litres, which puts out up to 210 horsepower.  In comparison, a more  
typical sedan is the Ford Taurus, a six passenger car on a shorter  
wheelbase, and powered by V6 engines of 3.0 and 3.8 litres.
Note that smaller cars are available, such as the Ford Escort (1.6  
litres, if memory serves), but they are not terribly popular with  
anyone who can afford more size or power.  
 
> I own a Fiat Tipo with a 1.4 litre engine. This is reasonably powered  
for
> everyday driving (I've managed an indicated 120mph on a journey to  
Edinburgh).

Your peak power is probably fine, but it is probably produced in a very  
narrow rpm range.  We Yanks like torque, and plenty of it.  High  
specific output engines have not fared terribly well in our market.   
Sure, they use less fuel, but it's a lot of work to wring the maximum  
out of them.  One drive in a Ford 5.0 litre Mustang (or the new V10  
Dodge Viper, if you want to get serious) and you will never again  
describe a 1.4 litre engine as "reasonably powered".  The main  
difference is that fuel runs about $1.15 - $1.30 per U.S. Gallon here,  
which I would guess is significantly lower than the price in the UK, so  
the trade off in fuel economy is not so significant over here.

> It is also one of the roomiest cars I've ever travelled in ,able to  
seat 5 in
> comfort. The interior decor is nothing to speak of but is pleasant.
> 
Want to really try roomy?  I have a 64 Chrysler Imperial.  129 inch  
wheelbase.  5000 lbs.  413 cubic inches and 340 horsepower (SAE gross).   
You would call this rediculously large.  Come to think of it, most  
Americans would call this rediculously large.  And it is.  But it sure  
is comfortable.  
  
> If cars in America ARE as ridiculously large as we are led to believe  
is it not
> about time that "Yank tanks" were designed more sensibly.
> 
I think that the bottom line is that our "yank tanks" ARE designed  
sensibly for our domestic market.  When my family goes to visit  
grandma, we drive 100 miles of 4 lane highway at 65 mph (some of us do  
exceed this, by the way) and we see very little in the way of  
civilization, let alone congestion, the whole trip.  Fuel prices are  
low (actually, I should say that our fuel prices are reasonable, YOURS  
are high), everyone is comfortable and happpy.  I think that if we face  
the sensible truth that US cars are sensible for US conditions and that  
UK cars are sensible for UK conditions, we can probably avoid a flame  
war.  It is true that Honda is doing very well in our market (in fact,  
my wife drives an 88 Accord).  But the reason Honda does well here  
(IMHO) is that their cars have gotten significantly larger and more  
powerful over the last 10 years or so, amd they are now acceptible to  
many mainstream buyers.  Note, however, that many of us opt for  
something with at least 6 cylinders these days.

> I saw an article in a magazine reviewing the cadallac seville. It did  
sound
> like it was indeed an exellent car ,however it was enormous. Is this  
the normal
> size of your average American sedan? My Fiat Tipo has a 100 inch  
wheelbase and
> is roughly 120 inches long and has enough interior room even for a  
quartet of 
> large 6 foot 2 adults.
> 
> My Fiat has an antiquated engine ,unlike HondaUs latest batch of VTEC  
engines, and
> only has 2 valves per cylinder but manages a creditable 78bhp and  
similar torque

Creditable?  I'm afraid that these figures just won't get the job done  
in the US.  Even our Honda (which I gripe about because of its lack of  
power in the real world) has about 110 bhp. I wonder if you can even  
buy a 78 bhp car here anymore?  There used to be a good number of them,  
but there is a very limited market for that sort of thing when not  
faced with rediculous fuel prices.

> coupled to around 35 - 40 mpg. Some French 1.4 litre engines have a  
much higher
> ouput from the same basic specification , are American engines as  
efficient from 
> low capacities? Do American engines have to be so large to move  
rather oversize
> and overwieght cars?
> 
My final comment is that there is just no substitute for cubic inches  
when it comes to providing lots of low-end torque at a reasonable  
price.  The tradeoff is thirst for fuel.  That tradeoff makes sense on  
this side of the Atlantic although it probably doesn't on your side.  

> I wait with interest for some answers.
> 
> Thanks Aidy.

Jim Cavanaugh
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA