European vs. American Automotive Histories

[Mr. 'H']

Inspired by some insights from BellyTank in another thread:

European and American car cultures and engineering aproaches have always been very different.

Yes, but why?

[huh]

Just curious about

- social reasons
- economic considerations
- manufacturing reasons
- need for speed, etc.

But a "typical/average" US, V-8 car in 1950-ish (a '50 Ford, for instance)was a Flathead (call it 4 litres) and had some good torque, 100 odd hp a shaped like a brick. Compare this to a streamlined, lightweight, OHV European of 4 cylinders and 2 litres with a revvy 50hp, a car of half the weight of its US counterpart. OHV and OHC engines were common in Europe at this time, when flatheads were still normal in the average American car. A car weighing 2 ton needs 180ftlb torque and 100hp to shift it from a standstill and get up to speed. European and American car cultures and engineering aproaches have always been very different. I realise we are are comparing an average American car to a European which is not quite average for the time but maybe you get my point.


B
T

Some very interesting points. But do you really think that a 4 cyl OHV 2 ltr would or could compete with a straight 8 with between 4 and 5 ltrs?

Are these engines really half the weight?

I would love to invite your comments on the reasons for the historic differences.

 

[BellyTank]

Availability and cost of fuel- taxation on fuel and engine size.

Size of Country and potential distances to travel and associated comfort and ease of travel. (can even compare car Australia and New Zealand in this respect)

National economy, depression or no, recovering from expensive wars and colonial interests, national self impression, national/personal perception of prosperity/or not, national mentality.

Governments and large companies(maybe together) marketing product to reap the most benefits from the consumer- cars, fuel.

Embracing new technology, or not.

B
T

 

[Smithy]

Some very interesting points. But do you really think that a 4 cyl OHV 2 ltr would or could compete with a straight 8 with between 4 and 5 ltrs?

Not European, but have a look at what the Japanese are producing from 2 litre 4 pot engines. The new Evos and STIs are as quick as a Ferrari or Porsche and point-to-point on a real road probably far quicker because of their handling.

Big capacity engine does not necessarily mean big improvement in performance.

 

[donCarlos]

I will quote my own post which was meant to answer this question:

All eastern block machinery has one common quality - the engineers prefered easy serviceability and good functionality to design (not an issue to these cars) and comfort. The economic reason was also important - how to make a good looking luxurious car with great engine when all material was used, for example, to build locomotives and mining machines. That was situation east of east germany.

In the western europe, it was mainly the crisis after WWII, which made the companies to design smaller cars with lower fuel consuption. When the crisis was over, they could develop other designs, but people found that the smaller cars are better in many aspects.

I don´t think that the USA has ever gotten such a lection (except the crisis in the 30´s and maybe during the WWII gas restrictions), so the cars were designed primarily for comfort.

The only point I forgot to mention is the 70´s oil crisis, which had a great impact on means of transport as well.

 

[Flivver]

This is potentially a very interesting topic!

Among the greatest differences between Europe and America during the formative years of the auto industry were regulation and taxation. Most European countries levied stiff taxes on fuel and engine displacement which forced cars to be small and efficient.

In the U.S., fuel taxes were small and displacement taxes were almost non-existent...so consumers were able to get pretty much anything they wanted. And what they wanted were large, comfortable, powerful and flashy cars. And with inexpensive fuel, displacement was the cheapest way to achieve performance.

And, Americans wanted durable cars that could take abuse without complaint. This led to simple, straightforward engineering rather than to technically elegant solutions. For example, both Chevrolet and Buick made (almost) nothing but OHV engines from the beginning. But most American consumers *preferred* L-Head engines due to their simplicity. In the 1950s, as high-octane fuels allowed compression ratios to go above 8:1, U.S. automakers quickly moved to OHV engines. (it is difficult to efficiently achieve compression ratios above 8:1 with an L-Head design).

Even today, OHV engines still make sense on this side of the pond versus the now more common OHC and DOHC designs. OHV engines are cheaper to build, simple of design (compared to OHC engines) and deliver lots of torque at low RPM...perfect for the automatic transmissions that Americans prefer. And, OHV engines adapt themselves more easily to variable displacement to save fuel. The Chevrolet "small block" V8 is a prime example.

So many "local" differences on each side of the pond led to a very different development trajectory for American and European cars.

 

[BellyTank]

Big capacity engine does not necessarily mean big improvement in performance.

But it does mean longevity and less maintenance and overhall.
Lazy torque, compared to screaming HP.

B
T

 

[plain old dave]

Something else that bears mentioning:

The size of the countries in Europe; England is a tiny country, relatively speaking. No real need for a roomy, comfortable car if all you ever do with it is ride across town. Europeans have generally used trains, etc for long range trips. Which would you rather take on a road trip from Ohio to the Grand Canyon, a Buick Roadmaster or an Austin?

 

[benstephens]

There are some interesting points raised here. I think, it is very true that what really limited or, one could argue optimised the design of European engines was the taxation rules, meaning you would get car makers using very small engine to keep the HP rating down, yet still be able to kick out a decent BHP.

It is also interesting to note, that many ex American Service men had MGs shipped back to America after the war, looking for something different and a bit sportier to the large American cruisers.

We can also look at the lists of top racing cars, which the Europeans had in abundance, being able to utilise the small engine technology that had been developed on the larger engines available to them. I think that the europeans actually held most of the speed records, lap records etc during the 1930s.

However, as commented elsewhere here, the American cars were much more durable, and a lot less maintenance intensive. They were widly chosen by many people living in remote locations over the European cars which tended to be less reliable.

I am very pro European cars, and feel that many were marvels of Engineering, but for instance, an Alfa specialist in this country uses a Model A for trials, as the Alfa's, although much faster are no way near as durable!

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Mr. 'H']

I wonder, are there specific reasons why the European governments en masse levied higher taxes on bigger engines?

I mean, this meant that no larger displacement engines were built for the mass markets in Europe, therefore the higher taxes weren't collectable by the governments because these cars weren't really on the roads.

I figure there must have been another more specific reason aside from taxes being collected as to why the European governments favored smaller engines.

Or maybe it wasn't a specific reason but rather a combination of economy, more long distant public transport, etc.

 

[BellyTank]

Ooops... I moved this post down here...

Re: the point above; "... are these engines really half the weight..."


Well- consider this: an example- when MG put the Rover V-8 in the MGB-GT, to create the MGB-V8, people thought that the handling and weight distribution would be severely compromised. Surprisingly, perhaps, the all alloy Rover3.5ltr V-8(copied from a Buick engine) was 18lbs LIGHTER than the cast iron 1800cc 4 cyl. engine.

Imagine the engine in your own car- a cast iron straight-8. Compare that to a cast iron 4-cyl (half the cylinders AND smaller all round)of 2 ltrs.
Probably way less than half the weight.
Aluminium was also in use in Europe inengines transmissions, etc.

The Austin 7 was a tiny car but the way it was built made it surprisingly light- gearbox and crankcase aluminium, hardly any chassis, tiny. Imagine a 750cc(Austin 7 size) sidevalve engine with all cast iron parts, full chassis and full size. The Austin 7 started production in the 1922 and ran through to '39.

As an aside Jaguar, BMW, Lola(sports cars) and many other famous marques were founded on a re-badging the Austin 7 and its immense adaptability and manageability. I have a friend who builds Austin / specials- small sports cars- you can lay the engine, driveline chassis our on the floor in a small bathroom- all the pieces can be easily lifted by one man- even the engine, which is tiny, the front axle in one hand. When you take such a small and light engine(only a 750cc flattie) and put it in a scant, hand formed aluminium body, you have two handfulls of fun.


Consider also... I forgot...
More later- my Mongolian houskeeper has arrived.


B
T

 

[benstephens]

Not to be quoted on this, but my understanding has been that in the case of British cars, the taxation was based upon the RAC HP rating. However, this rating was based on some assumptions, which, for early cars were fine, such as piston speed, but as engines developed hampered the engine size, and created the situation of having narrow bore and long stroke engines, or I think technically known as undersquare. I think the American moved to short stroke engines, which develop more power.

So I personally feel that it was an oversight and relunctance to change the RAC rating system that meant continuation of the long stroke engine on most production cars.

The RAC formula was (Diameter*Diameter)*number of cylinders/2.5

However, many saw this as a cheaper way to tax than on the actual BHP output of the car, for instance a 9hp singer may actually be 30Bhp. It was still an expensive tax though at 1 pound/hp.

 

[Luddite]

I understand that many American roads of the first half of the 20th century were dirt or oiled dirt rather than the metalled / cobbled roads of Europe (a Roman influence?). Keeping the sprung mass (of the body, chassis, engine and ancillaries) up lowers, in relative terms, the unsprung mass giving a less jouncy ride.

On a similar note to previous posts, European roads tend to follow the path of the old cart tracks, which in turn followed either the boundaries of the small fields, or the animal herding routes. Consequently, in general European roads tend to be twisty with short straights. The USA, however, developed the bulk of its infrastructure in a time when cars were in general usage, and rapid transport between distant places was the necessity. Hence long, straight roads. To drive on European roads thus requires an agile, light, responsive car, and conversely, a rock-steady, lazy, comfortable ride is what is needed in the USA.

 

[BellyTank]

Something else that bears mentioning:

The size of the countries in Europe; England is a tiny country, relatively speaking. No real need for a roomy, comfortable car if all you ever do with it is ride across town. Europeans have generally used trains, etc for long range trips. Which would you rather take on a road trip from Ohio to the Grand Canyon, a Buick Roadmaster or an Austin?

This is very true of the era and still holds true today...
I mentioned it before- distance travelled- size and comfort, relative close proximity of large cities to each other. Availability of Public transport and the mentality of using it- not just in England but all over Europe- a train system that can take you from London to Istanbul and beyond.

Availability of fuel to England may have been limited when compared to the USA, who had fuel to burn. Taxation may have served this- I believe there is also a little of the Socialism involved here- the "benevolent dictator", who tells you what you need and don't need, compared to thecomparative "right", Stateside to own whatever you want- free market- speaking cars.

Cars where also somewhat of a luxury in England, rather than a necessity.
Luxury, due to cost of purchase, fuel and maintenance and not such a necessity due to the geography. There was not a widespread aspiration to owning an automobile.

Remember, England was in a depression too, post WW1 austerity, WW2 rationing and austerity again- into the 1950s. Take all these factors, and those mentioned in other posts into account, and it doesn't at all build a "car culture". America- socially, economically and technologically very different.

England did have the V8-60 though, the little sister of the Ford V-8, (in the scaled down England market American cars)which was used back in the 'States in motor racing/boat racing/Hot Rodding.

Speaking of Hot Rodding, many early items of speed equipment for Ford, Chevrolet, etc. engines, looked to European automotive engineering for their inspiration. There was a multitude of parts, in the '20s and '30s, for the American flathead 4 cylinder engines- overhead valve and overhead cam cylinder heads- as OHV and OHC engines were in wide useage on the continent. More HP squeezed from a 4 cyl. engine with OHV and OHC.
Peugeot head for your L-head 4 banger engine?

Speaking of Peugeot, it has widely been suggested that the Ford Model A, (1928) was based on the 1925 Peugeot 201. Quite similar in appearance.


B
T

 

[benstephens]

Cars where also somewhat of a luxury in England, rather than a necessity.
Luxury, due to cost of purchase, fuel and maintenance and not such a necessity due to the geography. There was not a widespread aspiration to owning an automobile.

Remember, England was in a depression too, post WW1 austerity, WW2 rationing and austerity again- into the 1950s. Take all these factors, and those mentioned in other posts into account, and it doesn't at all build a "car culture". America- socially, economically and technologically very different."


Yes, I think these are probably the over riding factors that kept cars small. the European market was looking for affordabilty, and the cars being a luxury that motoring did not really take off in Britain until the 1950s when the cost of cars in comparison to wages were coming down.

I do not agree that there was not a wide spread aspiration to own a car, otherwise, the motoring boom of the 50s probably would not have happened as quickly as it did, but in the 1930s people realised that affording a car was beyond their means. Even a fairly basic Hillman minx in 1938 was about 180 pounds, so in comparison to the average wage would have made driving a luxury. Couple this with the fact that most people lived in walking distance, they did not feel they had any need for a car, although this must in my opinion be seperated from the aspiration to actually own a car.

Even when car manufacturing resumed post war, most cars were made for the export market, and not the home market, so even buying a new car became difficult if not impossible in the austere days of the mid to late 1940s.

However, the 1950s changed that, Cars became cheaper and more affordable, and even those families who, perhaps in the 1930s thought car owner ship was beyond their means found that car ownership was within reach. This trend has continued today, with cars being cheaper than they have ever been, hence we see most families having at least two cars.

 

[Twitch]

Here's an article I wrote long ago that might help a bit in some areas.

YOU COULD HAVE HAD A V-8

Since Henry Ford first began to play with quadra-cycles before the turn of the century, the American auto industry operated and grew without government regulation. While foreign auto makers were forced to deal with displacement-related taxes and fuel taxes, American industry was free to develop cars that responded to American market of cheap gas and an expanding road system. This atmosphere made the proliferation of the V-8 a natural. This makes the V-8 the best all around engine configuration in the world.

We Know What's Best for You, Comrade
Foreign nations have labored under the mistaken impression that government knows what is best for its people. So, in many ways those governments' regulations favored small displacement engines, not because they were better, but because they fit bureaucrats' tidy regulations and tax formulas. American auto makers were able to concentrate on the product and make it better for consumers. Assembly line production techniques and other improvements that responded to real needs of auto buyers allowed many companies to prosper. Those car companies that did not sell fell by the wayside.

Innovation was rewarded by sales. Cars that had features and/or an attractive price were a success. Higher sales meant the cost per unit dropped to the point where the average, and even poor, could afford to own an automobile. The culmination of this phenomenon was the American V-8 engine. From the Cadillac Northstar V-8 to the predecessor Ford flathead V-8to the legendary Chevy small-block, the V-8 represents all that is good about the American auto industry in particular, and about America in general. These three very different engines from different eras share one important thing- their V-8 configurations. Like baseball V-8 engines are associated with America the world over.

Power to the People
While foreign governments feared the ability of the people to move around too much, the United States had no such problem, and the vast country was soon linked with highways. In Europe, tax laws prevented all but the very rich from owning a powerful, large displacement engine. In the United States the widespread V-8 became a tool of democracy, allowing everyone to enjoy the performance of a big V-8. Power available only to the European elite was inexpensively accessible to the average American.

In all its forms, the V-8 is hardworking and non-complaining. It performs its tasks quietly and smoothly but can still give lively performance when desired. The V-8 is equally at home in a conservative sedan or a fast sports car. To match the V-8 performance, foreign designers resorted to a vast assortment of costly mechanical add-ons.

Multiple camshafts, multi-valve heads, turbocharging, and supercharging go back to the turn of the century. These and more have been used to compensate for tiny four cylinder engines' failings in horsepower and torque.

While all this mechanical muddle ran unchecked elsewhere, Americans drove along blissfully ignorant as their technically inferior V-8's churned out tons of useable horsepower and available torque, typically running 100,000 to 200,000 miles with routine maintenance. While peak power of a "teched-up" four cylinder may look impressive on paper, the V-8's broad power curve and low revolutions per minute (RPM) torque get the job done better. The V-8 has more power over its whole revolution range beginning at the low end where it is not working very hard. This lower speed to produce more power equals less wear in the engine's life.

Apples and Oranges
While equally used, any device that increases four cylinder power to compete with the V-8 when similarly installed, produces a greater relative increase that the puny four-cylinder cannot match. There are many "tricks" to boost the power of four cylinder engines, but when applied equally to V-8's, power gains are always superior since size and number of cylinders is greater. There is no way, without trickery, that a 120 cubic inch four cylinder engine can equal power or long life of a 350 cubic inch V-8 or the smooth, flowing torque curve. As a wise man once said, "There is no substitute for cubic inches." In other words, "bigger is better" and smoother.

None of this argument is meant to assert that a small, four cylinder engine is not suitable if the intended purpose is for fuel economy. The point is that the V-8 is the best all around engine for use in the United States, considering American driving habits. Where Europe and Asia generally have ancient little high traffic density lanes and roads, the Unites States has a vast network of wide boulevards and interstate highways and relatively cheap fuel. American vehicles were created for the U.S. transportation system. They offer a balance of power, fuel economy (if not too large), quiet workings, and long service.

What is Power?
The V-8 type cylinder arrangement is similar to putting two four cylinder engines together, which intersect at a 90 degree angle at the crankshaft. This physical lay-out has historically worked best to combine smoothness, durability, and power in one engine.

Power is the time rate of doing work. U.S. horsepower is defined as the ability needed to lift 550 pounds up three feet in one second. Torque is a force, not work, like gravity. It is defined as a measurement of a twisting or turning effect exerted around a center of rotation. If you take a crank one and a half feet in diameter and turn it with a pressure of thirty pounds, the amount of torque exerted is 1.5 X 30=45 pound feet. The closest example is the centrifugal force created by a carousel from its turning. The turning crankshaft exhibits this centrifugal force and it is translated to the road through the drive line components. When set in motion the larger V-8 turns more slowly in revolutions per minute (RPM) to output the same torque as a four cylinder does at higher RPM. As the RPM increases, the V-8 produces still more power over a broader RPM band that the four cannot match. Even if a four and a V-8 had measurably the same horsepower, the V-8's greater dimensions create greater turning forces with greater and smoother useable power.

We've Come Full Circle
When Chevrolet engineers initially planned the Asmall-block@ V-8, their thinking ran along the lines of an engine of 231 cubic inches. Subsequent discussions-which included a closer look at the requirements of power steering, air conditioning, increased frontal area and vehicle weights raised the size of the "paper" engine to 245 cubic inches displacement (CID).

After basic dimensions were established, it was discovered that an engine of 260 or 265 CID could be built with no penalty of extra weight. One engineer who was in on this early planning of the engine recalls some heated discussions about whether the engine really needed to be as large as 265 CID. But the engineers were well aware that adequate displacement is fundamentally the most economical method of ensuring high torque, sharp performance and reasonable economy. While V-8's existed before, the true birth of the V-8 for mass production occurred in 1932. Henry Ford put the engine into the Model A at a time when anything with more than four cylinders was exotic, expensive, or both. It was 221 CID and produced 65 HP and, more importantly, was affordably priced by Ford so as most anyone could buy one.

The second stage of V-8 evolution was in the early 1950's when engineering and technology produced engines that had much more power than before. We recognize those engines today in modern form. Only the cylinder heads and intake system have become more sophisticated. The same V-8, even by size comparison, hides beneath fuel injection systems, electronic ignitions and double overhead cam cylinder heads. While the 1960's saw the V-8 grow to very large proportions, many around 500 CID, the third generation engine has stabilized at, remarkably, the same general size as the above mentioned Chevy V-8 of 1955.

Manufacturing techniques have improved to the point where the once exotic is
now standard. Mass production has made it possible to include once expensive features on the V-8. Producing many millions of any product makes the cost per unit drop compared to producing many thousands of that same product. Aluminum and stainless steel parts, coupled with modern metallurgy and computer engine management, have produced compact V-8's that are better than ever. Light weight aluminum combined with durable metals in a compact package with overhead cams, multi-valve cylinder heads, electronic ignitions and fuel injectors, all orchestrated by relatively inexpensive computers, combine to give maximum performance, low maintenance, and thrifty fuel consumption. Most of the devices used to pep up four cylinder performance are now standard on today=s V-8 with all the relative benefits. All this technology in a vehicle that is advanced unites to create the modern V-8 powered car. For these reasons, the V-8 is by far the best all-around engine for American cars.

The V-6 offers a light, small size, and better mileage but must be in a relatively smaller car to give adequate performance. A small engine in a car that is too heavy works too hard. V-8s exist in all sizes for all types of cars. Other types of engines enjoy no such range of sizes.

When you look at V-10, V-12 or V-16 types complication, expense, length and weight become factors. In-line three or five cylinder engines offer no substantial advantages in economy over the four cylinder and the V-6 is a better package. If you have space for a five cylinder you have space for a V-6.

There is no reason to settle for second best and then say, "I could have had a V-8!"

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fisher, Bill and Waar, Bob.
How to Hotrod Small-block Chevys
H.P. Books, Tucson, Arizona, 1976

Huntington, Roger
How to Hop Up Ford and Mercury V-8 Engines
Floyd Clymer, Los Angeles, California, 1951

General Motors Corporation
A Power Primer: An Introduction to the Internal Combustion Engine
General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, 1944

Phipps, David
Modern Racing Cars Of The World
Frederick Muller Limited, London, England, 1963

Sheel, J.D.
Cars Of The World
E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc., New York, New York, 1963

 

[Flivver]

Fletch...that's an outstanding analysis! As a lover of the V8 engine, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Of course, now that we have $4 gas and new CAFE regulations our beloved V8s are being threatened. The near term is likely to see direct injection, turbocharged I4s and V6s that put out high horsepower and torque. But they just won't be the same as a good old American V8.

And, I suspect, they won't be as durable either, although powertrain engineers I've spoken with disagree.

 

[Mr. 'H']

Excellent analysis Twitch.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

I have learnt a helluva lot on this thread....

 

[Diamondback]

A most interesting read, Twitch. Hmmm, my pair of Firebirds may end up having to be V8's after all...

 

[benstephens]

Twitch, That is a very good assessment of the V8. It is very true that many European manufacturers struggled with the concept, even Riley tried it by putting two of their nine horse power engines together, but it was never a major success.

I think as well, the Dagenham plant over here as well struggled with putting the right V8 into the right vehicle, so, many thought the V8 was underpowered, which it wasn't, just in the wrong vehicle.

I think it is a little wrong, particularly for the UK to say the government did not want people to move round. We had at that time a fantastic rail network that allowed people to move easily, whilst granted our road network was very patchy. Remember in the 1930s the British government actively encouraged people to travel, as it was realised that it was good for the economy. What we had against us was the fact that people were unable to travel due to not being able to afford it.

However, there was a fear of mass migration across borders especially in the 1930s, this is true. Europe being made up of a lot of countries meant that it was very problematic without rules to enforce border control, whereas America is just a much bigger country for people to travel internally, and as I mentioned above, our government actively encouraged people to travel internally throughout this country. I am not very up on American history, but did America not have a period of repatriation of Mexicans from about 1929?, was this not a fear of people moving across borders?

My only point being here, is that in general, most free European countries allowed, and in many cases actively encouraged internal movement, the same as America. However, the country has never been as wealthy, in both personal wealth and national wealth.

It is true to say, that really, whilst America was turning out cars on production lines, British car manufacturers were still having many of the bodies coach built. The American car was much more affordable, and meant that the life style could follow. Remember, we caught up with mass production by the 1950s, and although not on as large scale, we could produce affordable cars, meaning more people could drive, hence in the 1950s mass road improvement schemes began, then along came the motorway.

I seem also, to think another country in the 1930s had one of the best road networks in the world, produced a car for the people and actively encouraged it citizens to travel. I realise though the road network was designed with movement of the military in mind, it shows that a good transportation system and affordable cars are not necessarily there just for the free.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Flivver]

The importance of good roads in all of this can't be over emphasized.

Here in the U.S. we had a good roads movement that began in the 1890s during the bicycle craze. Things really got going in the teens with the beginning of projects like the Lincoln Highway. By the mid-1920s, the roads here were pretty good...especially in the more populated areas.

The WPA projects in the 1930s continued to fill out the road system, including planting the seeds of what became the Eisenhower Interstate System in the 1950s.

Because of all this activity, the U.S. had among the best roads in the world from the 1920s on. And this had a huge impact on the kinds of cars Americans wanted to purchase...big comfortable cars with large displacement V8s that loafed at highway speeds.

When European cars first became popular in the U.S. in the mid-50s, the biggest complaint against them was that they were noisy at highway speeds (due to high engine RPMs) and that they lacked sufficient power to accelerate onto highways. They got great fuel economy, but no one really cared about that with gas at 25 cents per gallon.