Which was worst? US or British car industry at its lowest point?

[GraemeH]

I thought someone might say this, and I'd have to disagree.

The British car these days is a cottage industry, yes. The thing is though, it's all enthusiasts and enthusiast cars that are made in the UK now. Here's a list of UK car manufacturers in business at the moment :

Aston Martin (British-owned, again)
Caterham
Noble
Lotus (based in the UK, although Malaysian-owned)
Radical
Caparo
Bristol
McLaren Automotive
Morgan Motor Company
Marcos
Ariel
Ultima
Ascari
Westfield

Thing is, I'd love to own a car from any of the above companies. And due to the fact the UK car industry is small (and due to EU loopholes), the small car companies can thrive here. These small companies tend not to make duffers - each new product could literally break them, so they tend to be excellent.

The UK car industry isn't in a bad state, as long as you accept it's now a very very small industry. Almost all UK car companies are serious concerns. We don't have any more big companies producing mediocre cars.


edit - having said that, British Leyland in the 70s...*shudder*

I'd rather own one of those small production run sports cars from the UK than a mass production motor from either the UK or America. But presumably the biggest things you have to judge an industry on when deciding whether or not it is successful are profit, efficiency, jobs created, commercial health. The American industry has none of those apart from jobs, the British car industry has none of those at all, no matter how good the cars are. Just blokes in industrial units turning out a dozen cars a year.

 

[Spectre]

Indeed, but they are equally shit

Never thought I'd be defending the K-car, but here goes...

Maybe so, maybe no. The K-car platform wasn't too bad, and some of remnants of the K-car still underpin the Chrysler minivan to this day.

Also, the K-car, when it was sold as the K-car, had no pretensions. It was sold specifically as cheap transportation. Nobody ever called the K-car sporty. It was, however, comparable to if not necessarily really competitive with anything else in its segment the US market - and yes, that includes the likes of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. It was also a lot cheaper than the competition, and unlike BMC/BL's Mini, Chrysler actually was making a profit (a relatively large one) on each one they sold.

A surprising number of them have survived the onslaught of time, too.

Also, the K-car proper sold very well when new, was only sold for 8 years and was withdrawn when they weren't selling well any more. And they sold a *lot* of them. They also received constant development and updates throughout their lifetime (81-89). Total production for the Dodge Aries K was 972,216 vehicles and they made 525,013 Plymouth Reliant Ks. Of those, something like one third are actually still running around on American roads. There are at least a couple of hundred of them in Dallas alone - they're still a regular sight on the highway.

Meanwhile, the Morris Marina ran from 71 to 80, almost nothing *ever* changed on it, and Wikipedia has this to say about it:

"A survey conducted by Auto Express magazine in August 2006 revealed that just 745 of the 807,000 Marinas sold in Britain are still on the road - fewer than one in a thousand. This made it officially the most-scrapped car to have been sold in Britain over the previous 30 years. This was surprising even for a car which had ceased production 26 years earlier."


Hm... I think the K-car, by any standard or measure, was a much better car. After all, many of them are actually still around.

 

[British_Rover]

Agree with everything above.

The K-Car was wasn't a great car but it wasn't a bad car either. It was just fine as reliable cheap transportation.

The British industry was in much worse shape back in the 70s then the US car industry has ever been.

 

[GM_IV]

My mom has told me this a few years ago that her friends joked about how cheap their K-cars were compared to the Cressida I have. It was either 2 or 3 cars for the same money Toyota wanted on a mid-sized car back in the time when Camry was still a compact.

 

[Spectre]

Yup. The K car would seat six men of 6 foot height, 180lbs weight. Not particularly comfortably, but it would. The Cressida was the only contemporary Toyota that even approached that, and it was a LOT more expensive.

It also got 41 mpg on the highway.

It's interesting to note that Chrysler, like all other makers of the era, was touting front wheel drive as a beneficial feature - see the little "America's not going to be pushed around any more" blurb in the lower right, a reference to their attempt to sell Americans on FWD.

 

[thedguy]

The K-cars also benefited from the rather powerful 2.2/2.5 turbo engines as well. Here's one K-car you don't want to mess with...

[youtube]I8R5BwUVYqc[/youtube]

 

[I'm not Takumi]

While the retro thing is getting rather irritating, the fact that Chrysler and GM actually saw the "sport compact" market and jumped in with cars like the SRT-4 and the Cobalt SS (though late, and wrong form of forced induction) shows more hope than in the 90s. And then we get all the new GM's coming out in the next 5 years that have lots of potential for awesomeness.

:lol: Please, the SRT-4 is a complete and utter disgrace. In fact, it shouldn't even get the praise of being associated with the MOPAR namesake. A FF Muscle car? Yeah, and i'm the real Takumi Fujiwara.

Chrysler in this decade has brought us cars like the 300c, the Magnum, and Charger. They (arguably) looked good, had pretty good power, and weren't complete shit to drive.

Please see Clarksons "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" for my viewpoints on the 300C.

Ford seems to be the only one to have really screwed up.

Thank You Captain Obvious.

 

[Donington]

Ok, I was wrong about the K, it's not shit, just dull and ugly. However, the defense of the Brit-crap is they were almost always interesting in some way. The SD1 was rubbish, and built by people who just couldn't be arsed, so it fell apart in weeks. But it was fast, comfortable, had some interesting features, and looked fantastic.
Another one is the Montego. Probably the most boring looking car we've ever made, but I've seen some race modified Mg Turbo versions and they make formidable track cars.
Even the Allegro has some sort of quirky charm to it, and the Reliant has its comic value.

There are only two 'British' cars that have no redeeming value whatsoever. Basically a rubbish Honda anyway, but made more rubbish.

 

[chaos386]

Whoa! I have a pair of toy cars from my childhood that look just like those! Let me look for 'em...








...damn, I can't seem to find them. I wonder where they went?

 

[Spectre]

Ok, I was wrong about the K, it's not shit, just dull and ugly. However, the defense of the Brit-crap is they were almost always interesting in some way.

To quote Clarkson, "Er...... No." And remember, I'm a Brit car fan to start with.

Brit cars suffered from design failures that even GM, Ford, or Chrysler on their worst day would never commit. These often outweighed any other value or interest the car would have.

Here is one really good case: The Triumph TR8 was a TR7 fitted with the Buick/Rover V8. A good idea in principle - however, being cheap bas****s, they decided to retain the stock TR7 rear axle. Which meant that the TR8, right off the showroom floor, would snap the driveshafts with anything resembling a full-power launch. So the extra power was completely and utterly useless.

And they brought us the TR8 here in the US under the BL program of "We only export our best cars to America!"

Then they thought it'd be a good idea to foist off the Rover 800 on us over here (essentially an Acura Legend that Rover somehow managed to rewire and insert numerous problems in), but the Rover name had gotten such a hideous reputation in the States that they were forced to sell it here as a "Sterling". They sold well to start, but they had so many problems (even compared to the crappy Detroit cars of the era like the Cavalier, Celebrity, Escort and Omni) that sales rapidly crashed and burned. Very few of them have survived to this date, most of the ones I've seen lately have been for sale as parts cars because they're not worth fixing. I had one, an 827SLi, and I had no end of issues with it. The brakes were especially annoying because while they didn't work any better than the standard Legend's brakes, they were NOT the standard brakes and cost a lot more to service - which then begged the question of why they bothered replacing the Honda system in the first place. It rapidly ran up far more repair bills than my older-design Jaguar Series IIIs have ever dreamed of doing. And while it was a joy to drive for what it was, it was abundantly clear that not even the majority of bugs had been worked out while the car was under development and the glaringly apparent problems wiped out any possible enjoyment one could derive from driving it.

 

[teeb]

Even the Allegro has some sort of quirky charm to it

What? Where?

 

[British_Rover]

:lol: Please, the SRT-4 is a complete and utter disgrace. In fact, it shouldn't even get the praise of being associated with the MOPAR namesake. A FF Muscle car? Yeah, and i'm the real Takumi Fujiwara.

The SRT-4 dominated the American rally racing series. Nothing in the 2wd class could touch it and it racked up wins left and right. I think it even beat some of the open class AWD rally cars.

 

[Spectre]

The SRT-4 dominated the American rally racing series. Nothing in the 2wd class could touch it and it racked up wins left and right. I think it even beat some of the open class AWD rally cars.

He also forgets that Chrysler now has a 20 year history of building blazingly fast little turbo FWD cars. After the V8 musclecar era evaporated, Chrysler turned to 2.2/2.5L turbo motors in little cars - and made them really, really fast.

I'mNotTakumi: Go look up the Shelby Daytona, the Dodge Omni GLH/GLHS, the Dodge Shadow CSX, the Plymouth Laser and the Dodge Spirit R/T. Chrysler's modern "musclecars" are all turbo fours, and they have a 20 year history of them - far more recent than behemoths like the original Charger or Challenger. The Neon fits right into that tradition.

 

[thedguy]

:lol: Please, the SRT-4 is a complete and utter disgrace. In fact, it shouldn't even get the praise of being associated with the MOPAR namesake. A FF Muscle car? Yeah, and i'm the real Takumi Fujiwara.

Was it actually branded an "FF Muscle car?" I just thought they saw the "sport compact" market at it's peak and say "we need to get ourselves in on that shit...NOW." They did, and sold so fast the first 2 production years of the cars you couldn't go to a dealer and pick one up.

Keep in mind I don't like chrysler AT ALL, I feel FWD is wrong wheel drive, and I'm still willing to give them credit for a good idea on this. It was fast in a straight line, and had a good chassis. It only lacked an LSD (which I believe it got later), and a proper alignment. Once done it is one impressive driving car.

Just because a car doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it's a complete pile of shit. Which brings me back to the 300c. Chrysler did well with the 300c because of it's looks. You may not like it, but plenty of people did, and then to get the rappers into it. Which was just ingenious, IMO. I've heard it had a decent ride which works well for what it is, a "luxury car" (Chrysler doesn't have a clue about luxury).

 

[TC]

Yeah, the 300C looked good and drove good, but it was not comfortable at all. The leather seats are hard as a rock and the dash is pretty much the same you'll get in a Charger V6 or Magnum, but with the addition of a pretty little analog clock.

 

[British_Rover]

He also forgets that Chrysler now has a 20 year history of building blazingly fast little turbo FWD cars. After the V8 musclecar era evaporated, Chrysler turned to 2.2/2.5L turbo motors in little cars - and made them really, really fast.

I'mNotTakumi: Go look up the Shelby Daytona, the Dodge Omni GLH/GLHS, the Dodge Shadow CSX, the Plymouth Laser and the Dodge Spirit R/T. Chrysler's modern "musclecars" are all turbo fours, and they have a 20 year history of them - far more recent than behemoths like the original Charger or Challenger. The Neon fits right into that tradition.

Exactly it just a pity the bad ass turbo Chryslers just keep getting heavier and heavier. I mean I know that is the tendency of all new cars but the the Caliber is in no way a competent sport compact.


The 300C has typical mercedes seats with cheaper chrysler leather. They do nothing at all for me but the car does drive fairly nice. Drives like an E-class which was alright if fairly unengaging drive. I wonder why that is...

 

[Spectre]

Exactly it just a pity the bad ass turbo Chryslers just keep getting heavier and heavier. I mean I know that is the tendency of all new cars but the the Caliber is in no way a competent sport compact.

Exactly. I want to know who the idiot was that canned the Neon name and concept (just as the SRT-4 was heating it up) in favor of this Caliber thing and the Nitro. Nobody's buying the Nitro, and the Caliber isn't doing all that hot.

 

[I'm not Takumi]

Was it actually branded an "FF Muscle car?" I just thought they saw the "sport compact" market at it's peak and say "we need to get ourselves in on that shit...NOW." They did, and sold so fast the first 2 production years of the cars you couldn't go to a dealer and pick one up.

Yeah, but whenever I see one pictured in Mopar Muscle or any of the other Musclecar rags, I weep.

 

[thedguy]

Yeah, but whenever I see one pictured in Mopar Muscle or any of the other Musclecar rags, I weep.

E-mail those mags and bitch them out for being idiots then. It's definitely not a muscle car, but it's also not a heap of crap. And thats a lot coming from me.

Exactly. I want to know who the idiot was that canned the Neon name and concept (just as the SRT-4 was heating it up) in favor of this Caliber thing and the Nitro. Nobody's buying the Nitro, and the Caliber isn't doing all that hot.

I think a lot of us are wondering that. Everyone is complaining about Fuel economy and SUV's and their fuel economy, so what does someone at Dodge say "Lets make a Neon replacement that is like an SUV!" You know that company doesn't even have a single vehicle that gets more than 29mpg?

On a side note: I noticed with the 300c/magnum/charger, the V6 engine gets no better mileage than the v8, combined, city, or highway.

 

[No Boss]

[youtube]I8R5BwUVYqc[/youtube]

I see you submission, and raise my own:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQdsv4JFPe8[/YOUTUBE]