Slamnasty

Who told you the Chrysler Concord was the top-of-the-line American car? He needs a reality check.

And the only way a Chrysler Concord could be compared to a BMW is if we're talking moving objects with 4 wheels....other than that, there is no comparison.

emre

Then please match the following with your choice of american counterparts:
- BMW 7
- BMW 5
- BMW 3
- Mercedes S-class
- Mercedes E-class
- Mercedes C-class
- Audi A8
- Audi A6
- Audi A4
- Audi A3
- Porsche 911
- Porsche Boxster
- Porsche Cayenne
- Infiniti G35
- Infiniti G35C
- Infiniti FX35/45
- Lexus IS300
- Lexus RX300/330
- Lotus Espirit
- Lotus Elise
- Mitsu Evo
- Subaru STi

steve c

[QUOTE]Who told you the Chrysler Concord was the top-of-the-line American car? He needs a reality check.

Slamnasty

There is no comparison on the grounds that the Chrysler Concord is a very plebian domestic car from a manufacturer that *USED* to get more respect than it currently commands. To properly compare this Chrysler with a Euro, we'd have to compare it to a Euro we can't buy and are not familiar wit, say a Peugot, Citroen or Ford Europe product. But even then it doesn't wash because those cars are built for Euro needs/roads/buyers, who think entirely different than US buyers.

Also, the BMWs you listed are two and three times more expensive than most anything Chrysler makes, ergo they have high-dollar options and tuning no dime-a-dozen Chrysler will likely ever have.

Rental cars are rental for a reason: they're cheap to buy, maintain and run for companies like Enterprise, et al. You can rent BMWs for sure, but you won't be able to do so for say, $30 a day. The places that rent these two kinds of cars are as utterly disparate as the companies themselves.

emre

[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve c

steve c

America has no motorsports history then huh?

I guess the Vanderbilt cup, which dates back to 1904 is not

Penforhire

Emre, sounds like you're asking for American manufacturers that are based on motorsports, as many (all?) of the companies on your last list started that way. That's why their cars are so hard-core on performance.

Don't forget at one time Jaguars were a very unreliable car (anyone for Lucas, prince of darkness jokes?). I had a friend with an old Jag and not only did the firewall feedthroughs not have insulator grommets but his radiator fan was mounted with some of the wimpiest bolts (screws ?) imaginable (oh yeah, i know this 'cause they failed).

I'll bite on American sports cars. Saleen comes to mind. Shelby would be another (though his volume is pretty low). The kit car industry would give you a few more (e.g. Thunder Ranch for reasonable volume).

Hey, Alfas were cool back when most airplanes had radial piston engines...

protokultur

I always liked the Alfa Quadrifoglio:

Slamnasty

Auto racing history was written by the US, Germany and Italy mostly, and maybe a tad by Spain back in the day with Hispano-Suiza. Auto racing is just as indebted to the US as to any other country. Britain has also had their share, a little for France too. But storied American makes like Packard, Cadillac and Hudson had their day at Le Mans and other races. Here in the southwestern USA and Central America, Baja racing is this continent's version of WRC in Europe. Different continents just have different types of racing, based on the lay of the land and the history of the people. Both WRC and Baja are the deadliest racing sports, except for maybe F1 (not to say that all racing isn't dangerous).

Pop^Top

Definitely built more cheaply than the imports, I swore after my experience with a Camaro that I'd never buy another American car. I did break down and buy a Jeep Wrangler after I sold the S. Would have rather had a roadster but the activities I like to do (kayaking Scuba diving...) make it pretty impractical but I still wanted something topless. I'm pretty impressed with the Jeep so far, it is what it is, I'll probably drive it for a few years then get another roadster after its paid off.