Clarkson bashing the Mustang

[zfzfrost]

..for 40k here you can get a bmw 330i...

You can't compare UK and US prices that easily or you'll go wrong.

Exactly...
I don't know if it still happens, but there was a time when it was cheaper to get an european car that was already shipped to the USA shipped back to Europe than buying it here...

Why are the prices so much higher in Europe where I think the BMW's are manufactured? I'm not complaining or anything, I think its a great deal for us, but im very curious to why cars are so expensive in Europe. Higher transportation costs?

 

[zfzfrost]

Ford will pass of its solid rear axel as a tipped-hat to the drag racing crowd, but, even assuming that's at least a little true, I suspect it had mostly to do with money.

the 03 and 04 cobra had irs and so will the new cobra.

it all comes down to price for american cars. you people now living in the states will never realize how cheap american cars are. for example, a stock srt4 has a lsd, 230 hp and runs 13s stock but costs 21,000 usd. this is just in my head but that equals about 13,000 pounds.

don't forget the cobalt SS which is around the same price point, not as quick as srt4, but about the same money

 

[bartboy9891]

About as sophisticated as a mine cart, but fast enough that it doesn't matter. That's the beauty of American cars, and that's what Clarkson can't seem to understand.

he likes the viper, and kinda likes the vette. he likes the 'stang for nostalgic reasons, and he likes the Monaro because it is fun to drive.

its just that he thinks that they should make those cars with more quality or attention to detail. or make them ultra light and throw quality out the window and atleast make the interior interesting looking.

 

[astondg]

"Of course, the American way means they?ll never be able to build a sports car"

Corvette or Viper ring a bell?

A sports car isn't just about power or straight line speed. It's more about handling and driver involvement and also about the feeling you get from the car and all the controls. It might be fun sometimes to have to wrestle with a truck gearbox to get another gear but when your an twisty piece of road and you want a quick change back to 2nd before the next corner you want the change to be instictive, it should be light and precise. You don't want to feel like your forcing a car down the road it should really feel like it's just you, the car is just an extension of you. That's a good sports car, something that is willing you on not fighting you.

You also don't want to be fighting the car coming out of corners trying to put down 500+hp through less sofisticated or poorly tuned supension over bumps and things. Sure that's fun for a bit but not when you are trying to drive quickly and smoothly.

I think that is what a sports car is about and I don't the America cars provide that, and it seems neither does Mr Clarkson. They are for a different purpose and probably suit the American roads, people and lifestyle better.

EDIT: I should point out that there is no hate for American cars in that post. I was trying to explain why Clarkson might not call them sports cars.

Aston

 

[94Camaro]

No need to point it out, it was clear. Well put.

Me, I enjoy a straight line muscle car over a sports car, any day. But again that's just me. And that's why there are different cars for different people, as ou stated.

 

[astondg]

I can't ignore the fun factor in the right situation, especially if I had an airfield like Mr Clarkson does. That would be a fun place with a lot of the American muscle cars . I'm just more into drivers cars / sports cars I think because twisty roads and race tracks are where I do most of my driving.

Aston

 

[Z Draci]

94Camaro completely missed Clarkson's point.

I thought Jeremy's review was very generous. I've also had a Mustang as a rental car . . . and I still haven't gotten over how bad that car was. I couldn't find a single things that was good about it. At least Jeremy tried hard to come up with something.

His comparison of American and European motoring makes very good sense too. I hear too many Americans claim their cars handle well because it pulls so many g's. Yes, Americans are OBSESSED over 0-60 and quarter mile times. I've known people who would claim one car to be better than another simply based on these numbers. I gave up explaining what a very good car is to them. Many people simply don't understand what a good car is. That's why American car companies get away with selling cheaply engineered cars.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

His comparison of American and European motoring makes very good sense too. I hear too many Americans claim their cars handle well because it pulls so many g's. Yes, Americans are OBSESSED over 0-60 and quarter mile times. I've known people who would claim one car to be better than another simply based on these numbers. I gave up explaining what a very good car is to them. Many people simply don't understand what a good car is. That's why American car companies get away with selling cheaply engineered cars.

Unfortunately, your post has one giant, glaring flaw, which is a rather common one, but it makes it no more forgiveable.

You seem to think that your idea of a "good car" should be everyone's idea of a "good car." You couldn't be further from the truth. So what if some Americans obsess over 0-60 times? If that's what they enjoy, and that's what they want to spend their money one, so be it. Obviously, the reason they "don't understand" your idea of a good car is that their definition of "good" is far from yours. If you live in the middle if nowhere, where the roads are gravel and the only thing to do on a Saturday night is to head to the local 1/4 mile strip, your idea of a good car (or even truck) is going to differ from someone who lives beside the Nurburgring.

You call American cars "cheaply engineered," and in saying that, you've stumbled upon the rather obvious, yet rather overlooked aspect of American performance: it comes really, really, cheap. So cheap in fact, that a Dodge SRT-4, which is far less than $30,000, can do the 1/4 mile faster than a Honda NSX, a premium exotic. Sure, the interior is cheap. Heck, so is the whole car. But the bottom line is that if your car doesn't make you feel good about driving it, what's the point? Sure, you can go buy a BMW with a super-nice interior. But if you want the engine to go with it, be prepared to spend a whole lot more money than you would for a comparable American powerplant. The fitment of the plastics and the material the headrest is made of makes absolutely zero difference to how the car does the one thing you buy it for: drive. Thus, some people buy cheap, very fast cars and have a lot of fun driving them. Others buy more expensive luxury cars with small engines, and enjoy having spent more money on what amounts to a very expensive mobile couch. And yet others spend an absolute premium for a very fast car with a nice interior, and have the best of both worlds. However, no matter how much they spend, they're probably not going to have any more fun driving than the person with the fast cheap car. Nor are they going to be any more comfortable than the people with the expensive mobile couch.

No, it all comes down to the fact that people will always spend their money on what puts the biggest smile on their face while they're cruising down a motorway, flogging around a roadcourse, or thrashing down the quarter mile. And it's rather an exercise in futility to make them believe any different.

 

[zgrabill]

About as sophisticated as a mine cart, but fast enough that it doesn't matter. That's the beauty of American cars, and that's what Clarkson can't seem to understand.

Edit: On second thought, Clarkson does understand, but a lot of Europeans might not. Though does he have to make such a big deal out of the dashboard materials? Nobody's going to see you whizz by at 150mph going, "yeah, well my instrument faring is 0.15mm thicker!"

Well, I tend to think -- as the driver -- that because I spend the most time looking at the interior, interacting with it, as it were, that the interior ought to be a pleasant place to be. And I would say that the difference between the standards to which a mainstream European family car and a mainstream American sedan are built is much larger than just an instrument faring. I offer the Ford Mondeo vs. the Ford Taurus as an example. Can anyone honestly say that they two are equivalent? Same basic purpose, same basic market, WORLDS apart in interior quality and driving dynamics.

Look, I'm amazed at some of the sales numbers of the domestic cars that I would never sniff at: the Impala, for instance. It's clear that many American car buyers are satisfied with the quality and design of their vehicles. It's the car enthusiast who knows better and demands more. I do think that Detroit is starting to get it. But they've got a long way to go.

 

[zfzfrost]

His comparison of American and European motoring makes very good sense too. I hear too many Americans claim their cars handle well because it pulls so many g's. Yes, Americans are OBSESSED over 0-60 and quarter mile times. I've known people who would claim one car to be better than another simply based on these numbers. I gave up explaining what a very good car is to them. Many people simply don't understand what a good car is. That's why American car companies get away with selling cheaply engineered cars.

Unfortunately, your post has one giant, glaring flaw, which is a rather common one, but it makes it no more forgiveable.

You seem to think that your idea of a "good car" should be everyone's idea of a "good car." You couldn't be further from the truth. So what if some Americans obsess over 0-60 times? If that's what they enjoy, and that's what they want to spend their money one, so be it. Obviously, the reason they "don't understand" your idea of a good car is that their definition of "good" is far from yours. If you live in the middle if nowhere, where the roads are gravel and the only thing to do on a Saturday night is to head to the local 1/4 mile strip, your idea of a good car (or even truck) is going to differ from someone who lives beside the Nurburgring.

You call American cars "cheaply engineered," and in saying that, you've stumbled upon the rather obvious, yet rather overlooked aspect of American performance: it comes really, really, cheap. So cheap in fact, that a Dodge SRT-4, which is far less than $30,000, can do the 1/4 mile faster than a Honda NSX, a premium exotic. Sure, the interior is cheap. Heck, so is the whole car. But the bottom line is that if your car doesn't make you feel good about driving it, what's the point? Sure, you can go buy a BMW with a super-nice interior. But if you want the engine to go with it, be prepared to spend a whole lot more money than you would for a comparable American powerplant. The fitment of the plastics and the material the headrest is made of makes absolutely zero difference to how the car does the one thing you buy it for: drive. Thus, some people buy cheap, very fast cars and have a lot of fun driving them. Others buy more expensive luxury cars with small engines, and enjoy having spent more money on what amounts to a very expensive mobile couch. And yet others spend an absolute premium for a very fast car with a nice interior, and have the best of both worlds. However, no matter how much they spend, they're probably not going to have any more fun driving than the person with the fast cheap car. Nor are they going to be any more comfortable than the people with the expensive mobile couch.

No, it all comes down to the fact that people will always spend their money on what puts the biggest smile on their face while they're cruising down a motorway, flogging around a roadcourse, or thrashing down the quarter mile. And it's rather an exercise in futility to make them believe any different.

couldn't have said it better myself, I personally prefer the performance luxury cars.. But yeah, everyone is different.

 

[gtrietsc]

Well, I tend to think -- as the driver -- that because I spend the most time looking at the interior, interacting with it, as it were, that the interior ought to be a pleasant place to be. And I would say that the difference between the standards to which a mainstream European family car and a mainstream American sedan are built is much larger than just an instrument faring. I offer the Ford Mondeo vs. the Ford Taurus as an example. Can anyone honestly say that they two are equivalent? Same basic purpose, same basic market, WORLDS apart in interior quality and driving dynamics.

Look, I'm amazed at some of the sales numbers of the domestic cars that I would never sniff at: the Impala, for instance. It's clear that many American car buyers are satisfied with the quality and design of their vehicles. It's the car enthusiast who knows better and demands more. I do think that Detroit is starting to get it. But they've got a long way to go.

Ford Taurus != Ford Mondeo. Try the Ford Contour, discontinued because of poor sales.

Also, you cant count sales numbers on the Impala, because most of those are fleet sales (rental cars). They are bought *because* they are cheap, easy to maintain, and disposable.

 

[Z Draci]

His comparison of American and European motoring makes very good sense too. I hear too many Americans claim their cars handle well because it pulls so many g's. Yes, Americans are OBSESSED over 0-60 and quarter mile times. I've known people who would claim one car to be better than another simply based on these numbers. I gave up explaining what a very good car is to them. Many people simply don't understand what a good car is. That's why American car companies get away with selling cheaply engineered cars.

Unfortunately, your post has one giant, glaring flaw, which is a rather common one, but it makes it no more forgiveable.

You seem to think that your idea of a "good car" should be everyone's idea of a "good car." You couldn't be further from the truth. So what if some Americans obsess over 0-60 times? If that's what they enjoy, and that's what they want to spend their money one, so be it. Obviously, the reason they "don't understand" your idea of a good car is that their definition of "good" is far from yours. If you live in the middle if nowhere, where the roads are gravel and the only thing to do on a Saturday night is to head to the local 1/4 mile strip, your idea of a good car (or even truck) is going to differ from someone who lives beside the Nurburgring.

You call American cars "cheaply engineered," and in saying that, you've stumbled upon the rather obvious, yet rather overlooked aspect of American performance: it comes really, really, cheap. So cheap in fact, that a Dodge SRT-4, which is far less than $30,000, can do the 1/4 mile faster than a Honda NSX, a premium exotic. Sure, the interior is cheap. Heck, so is the whole car. But the bottom line is that if your car doesn't make you feel good about driving it, what's the point? Sure, you can go buy a BMW with a super-nice interior. But if you want the engine to go with it, be prepared to spend a whole lot more money than you would for a comparable American powerplant. The fitment of the plastics and the material the headrest is made of makes absolutely zero difference to how the car does the one thing you buy it for: drive. Thus, some people buy cheap, very fast cars and have a lot of fun driving them. Others buy more expensive luxury cars with small engines, and enjoy having spent more money on what amounts to a very expensive mobile couch. And yet others spend an absolute premium for a very fast car with a nice interior, and have the best of both worlds. However, no matter how much they spend, they're probably not going to have any more fun driving than the person with the fast cheap car. Nor are they going to be any more comfortable than the people with the expensive mobile couch.

No, it all comes down to the fact that people will always spend their money on what puts the biggest smile on their face while they're cruising down a motorway, flogging around a roadcourse, or thrashing down the quarter mile. And it's rather an exercise in futility to make them believe any different.

Yes, you're right. However, I was trying to get at the point that it's almost impossible to convince or let alone share your idea of a great car with them. They have no idea what you're on about if you veer away from the American norm. Many people talk in terms of 0-60, quarter mile, and skidpad g figures.

When I buy a car, I want it to be properly engineered to industry standards. It's not only interiors, American cars have other flaws that I simply cannot overlook. Because it is so cheaply made and concentrated on one single task (0-60, quarter mile, etc.), it fails miserably at everything else. The throttle and steering response of these cars are non-existent. Yes, it may win at a drag strip but you won't be able to control the car. Also, I would go mad thinking I paid money to touch interior pieces made by Fisher-Price plastics. You have to admit, most American cars are unrefined by any standard. It may do some things well, but you make a very big compromise to achieve that in order to keep costs low (which is a hard thing to do in the American car industry these days).

The key is that I didn't say "all Americans are about acceleration." I tend to hang around people who have similar tastes in cars as me. These are the people who appreciate a well balanced car as much as any European or Japanese enthusiast.

 

[BlaRo]

About as sophisticated as a mine cart, but fast enough that it doesn't matter. That's the beauty of American cars, and that's what Clarkson can't seem to understand.

Edit: On second thought, Clarkson does understand, but a lot of Europeans might not. Though does he have to make such a big deal out of the dashboard materials? Nobody's going to see you whizz by at 150mph going, "yeah, well my instrument faring is 0.15mm thicker!"

Well, I tend to think -- as the driver -- that because I spend the most time looking at the interior, interacting with it, as it were, that the interior ought to be a pleasant place to be. And I would say that the difference between the standards to which a mainstream European family car and a mainstream American sedan are built is much larger than just an instrument faring. I offer the Ford Mondeo vs. the Ford Taurus as an example. Can anyone honestly say that they two are equivalent? Same basic purpose, same basic market, WORLDS apart in interior quality and driving dynamics.

Look, I'm amazed at some of the sales numbers of the domestic cars that I would never sniff at: the Impala, for instance. It's clear that many American car buyers are satisfied with the quality and design of their vehicles. It's the car enthusiast who knows better and demands more. I do think that Detroit is starting to get it. But they've got a long way to go.

The Impala is a good seller because it appeals to rental car companies and people who are patriotic or want to get a brand new big boat for $9 grand. No joke, that's how much an old leftover Impala went for.

The Mondeo and Taurus also appeal to different crowds; the Mondeo precisely to those Europeans who favor interior design and quality moreso than Americans, like Clarkson; while the Taurus appeals to the same crowd the Impala does. Those who just want a big new car for cheap.

The car enthusiast, thankfully, knows better. And Detroit actually is starting to realize this. Are they up to snooty European standards? Not by a long shot. But when it comes to sports cars, it doesn't matter as much as long as you grin when you floor it.

 

[Blythy]

If you're gonna buy a sports car, why have the interior from a ford fiesta? Anyways the mustang is pretty much the yankee version of a corsa - it gets modded although usually with more than just a crappy plastic body kit from halfords and a bass system twocked from a skip playing some crap by some twat from a garage in manchester.

 

[BlaRo]

If you're gonna buy a sports car, why have the interior from a ford fiesta? Anyways the mustang is pretty much the yankee version of a corsa - it gets modded although usually with more than just a crappy plastic body kit from halfords and a bass system twocked from a skip playing some crap by some twat from a garage in manchester.

Yes, that's precisely it. A V8 rear-drive two-door sports coupe that's been around since the 60's is exactly the same as a three-door front-drive inline-4 hatchback.

Though you hit the nail on the head about the "twat from manchester" bit. We have those too, except they're not from Manchester and their preferred gangsta whipz are usually Civics, not domestic cars like Mustangs.

 

[Blythy]

nah, I meant it being a favoured car to mod - thats where the similarities end - apart from them both being made of relatively cheap components and they're both cheap to buy.

 

[94Camaro]

Yes, you're right. However, I was trying to get at the point that it's almost impossible to convince or let alone share your idea of a great car with them.

They have no idea what you're on about if you veer away from the American norm. Many people talk in terms of 0-60, quarter mile, and skidpad g figures.

As I'm sure it is impossible for you to understand when they explain why they enjoy what they think is a great American car, if they veer away from the norm of European car standards.

When I buy a car, I want it to be properly engineered to industry standards. It's not only interiors, American cars have other flaws that I simply cannot overlook. Because it is so cheaply made and concentrated on one single task (0-60, quarter mile, etc.), it fails miserably at everything else. The throttle and steering response of these cars are non-existent. Yes, it may win at a drag strip but you won't be able to control the car. Also, I would go mad thinking I paid money to touch interior pieces made by Fisher-Price plastics. You have to admit, most American cars are unrefined by any standard. It may do some things well, but you make a very big compromise to achieve that in order to keep costs low (which is a hard thing to do in the American car industry these days).

The key is that I didn't say "all Americans are about acceleration." I tend to hang around people who have similar tastes in cars as me. These are the people who appreciate a well balanced car as much as any European or Japanese enthusiast.

I don't see why it was necessary to say the exact same thing over again, but hey, it's your post.

You just don't get it. American cars meet the demands of the American people. Automakers don't just make what automakers want. They make what fits the American needs. Whe Americans want what a European vehicle can give them, they buy a European car. Most people don't care about a prissy interior. In fact, I prefer my black leather, bucket seats, and simple interior just for the sake of nostalgia of old muscle cars. There is nothing that I missed in the Clarkson article, rather something fundamentally simple that you and he both are missing and will never get.

 

[BlaRo]

nah, I meant it being a favoured car to mod - thats where the similarities end - apart from them both being made of relatively cheap components and they're both cheap to buy.

Fair enough. Though like I said, Mustangs are out of the league of people who think $12,000 in a tiny front-drive economy hatchback are cool.

OT, but ever been to Barryboys?

And 94Camaro is right about American cars suiting American needs. Only recently have American sports cars been aimed at the global market with the new Corvette. Clarkson was brought up on European cars with fine interiors and nippy handling; that's why he bashes American cars because he has some difficulty adjusting to the American mindset of cheap speed.

 

[Z Draci]

94Camaro and Blaro, you both are kidding me right?
If American cars meet the demands of the American people, why is the American car industry crumbling to shambles?

Maybe you believe that reason Americans buy the most Japanese and European cars in the world is just a mere coincidence?
When a wealthy man wants a good sports car, he will reach for the Ferrari or Porsche.
When a wealthy man wants a good luxury car, he will reach for a Rolls or Mercedes.
If money was not the issue, I don't think too many sensible people would buy an American car (except for their nostalgic value).
I already believe Americans know that the best cars in the world do not come from the US. The majority of the American consumers are simply ignorant and don't care what they get. The consumers never demand more so the companies never give them any better.

I knew a few people who owned Z28's. Some of them couldn't live with the fact that something like an Integra could out-manuver them and have better build quality. They soon sold their Z28's and got Japanese cars.
Come on, don't kid yourself. If you were a normal car buyer, you would want your car's interior to stay intact for more than a year.

Of course I won't understand the minds that settle for mediocracy. I'm not like those little guys that marry fat & ugly women and proclaim to everybody how wonderful her personality is, how mature she acts, etc. just to justify that you couldn't afford any better. No, I am not like those guys nor can I understand how their minds function.

Yes, fat & ugly women are fun to mock. Just because they exist for your entertainment doesn't mean you have to proclaim undying love and marry her.

 

[Aflac]

"Its engine has wasteful, unused capacity that turns fuel into nothing"

I think Jeremy needs to do a little research or a little math before he makes statements like that. Because while European cars certainly have more power/liter that is because they are far less fuel effecient. If you don't believe me then just head over to www.fueleconomy.com and take a look at the corvette which gets 18-28 mpg and compare it to a european engine with a similiar amount of power. How about the 8 cyl, 4.2 liter engine in the Maserati gransport which gets a whopping 12-17 mpg? The advantage of the american engine's massive volume is that it's a far less complicated engine which means far less to go wrong it. European engines are powerful for their size but that's because they make them a lot more complex which means they're more epxensive, more likely to go wrong and less fuel effecient.

I'm not a big fan of the mustang other than approving of the looks, but I really don't think most buyers will be taking theirs to Laguna Seca. Top gear usually tries to take into mind what the car was designed for, and then test it accordingly. It's like taking a range rover to the Nurburgring, yeah you can drive it around but is that what people are buying it for? The mustang is a cruiser, and that's why Hammond tested it as such in his review of it. What Clarkson has done is said "Well i like cars that handle like a lotus elise and this doesn't so it's a bad car...and I'm a cock!" Well guess what, I like cars that have a toaster oven in them so a Ferrari F430 is garbage!

Anyways, I realize that jeremy does acknowledge that the car makes sense in America but not in Europe, but I just thought I'd rant a little