Why are European manufacturers so dominant?

[Ryan81]

So, it just occurred to me that throughout the decades, European performance cars have radically outnumbered and outperformed their US and Japanese counterparts.

For instance, let's take the 1990s as an example. I can't remember any American supercars that could outperform the likes of the XJ220, F1, GT2, Diablo, EB110, F50 etc. The only one from the early to mid 90s that comes to mind is the Corvette ZR-1 C4.
Ford had the GT90 but it was only a concept. The Chrysler RT/10 looked and sounded nice but handled like a sleigh on rails. Wasn't until the turn of the millennium that Dodge produced the Viper GTS and Chevrolet the Corvette C5 Z06.

As for JDMs, the only one that comes to mind is the NSX Type R, excluding the likes of the Nismo 400R etc which was just a one-off and even then, non-competitive alongside the European powerhouses above.

I understand that they had less horsepower and perhaps weren't trying to match the likes of Bugatti, Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini etc but my question would be, why?

Even the 70s and 80s were completely devoid of serious competition from the US and Japan. In the 60s, Shelby produced the awesome Cobra 427 S/C. But that's it, just another one-off.

Even to this day, the Europeans are way out ahead. Again, why?

 

[Tornado]

It probably helps that Europe barely had emission standards until the late 90s; but a lot of it is because the performance tier above upper spec Corvettes and the Viper requires engineering investment that wouldn't carry over into the rest of their automotive range for the US automakers. Same for Japanese marques. The fact that half of the examples you listed were sales bombs and/or were attached to perpetually bankrupt companies probably makes it the smart play.


I do have one note, though:

XJ220

Diablo

I think you'll find that American hands were all over these two cars.




The former is in fact how

Ford had the GT90

 

[phillgt2002]

It probably helps that Europe barely had emission standards until the late 90s; but a lot of it is because the performance tier above upper spec Corvettes and the Viper requires engineering investment that wouldn't carry over into the rest of their automotive range for the US automakers. Same for Japanese marques. The fact that half of the examples you listed were sales bombs and/or were attached to perpetually bankrupt companies probably makes it the smart play.


I do have one note, though:


I think you'll find that American hands were all over these two cars.




The former is in fact how

This was pretty much most of what I was going to say. The U.S. and Japan had stringent emissions during the 70s and 80s, and Japan ended up building cars that were able to meet those standards.

 

[Ryan81]

Interesting theories that do make sense. However, the US had muscle cars with huge engines that drank petrol the way a thirsty person in the Sahara desert would drink water. Some of them were lucky to get 7 or 8mpg on a good run. Surely, their emissions standards would have been rock bottom?

I do agree with the emissions regulations on Japanese cars, however. I think a 3 litre would have been tops at the time with most being between 2 and 2.5. And the 'official' gentlemen's agreement of having 276hp max although in reality many of the 90s JDMs were and early 00s were hitting the 320-330hp range (Supra and R34 Skyline)

I guess when it comes right down to it, profit was the main reason that US marques didn't try to invest in cars that would have outperformed the high spec 'Vettes and Vipers. At least, that's the message that I'm reading. Their ethos was more "High performance at affordable prices" rather than "High performance at high prices" 😂

 

[Tornado]

Fuel mileage isn't emissions. You can pay a fine and easily ignore fuel economy standards in the US (though the domestic manufacturers understandably tried hard as hell to avoid doing so). You cannot sell cars at all in the US that don't meet emissions requirements; which is why most European cars were downrated in power for the US market and sometimes had to do things like hack off compression, adopt finicky early fuel injection systems while they remained carbureted in Europe or use entirely different engine specs that were only for the US/Japan. Sometimes they didn't bother and didn't sell cars in the US at all. You couldn't buy a 911 Turbo or Countach in the US for the first half of the 1980s because of this unless you imported it and modified it yourself.
For that metter, the main reason the US has the draconian 25 year import ban is because of Mercedes' ineptitude at meeting US emissions in the early 1980s.

 

[Ryan81]

Fuel mileage isn't emissions. You can pay a fine and easily ignore fuel economy standards in the US (though the domestic manufacturers understandably tried hard as hell to avoid doing so). You cannot sell cars at all in the US that don't meet emissions requirements; which is why most European cars were downrated in power for the US market and sometimes had to do things like hack off compression, adopt finicky early fuel injection systems while they remained carbureted in Europe or use entirely different engine specs that were only for the US/Japan. Sometimes they didn't bother and didn't sell cars in the US at all. You couldn't buy a 911 Turbo or Countach in the US for the first half of the 1980s because of this unless you imported it and modified it yourself.
For that metter, the main reason the US has the draconian 25 year import ban is because of Mercedes' ineptitude at meeting US emissions in the early 1980s.

But it just seems so contradictory. The US is one of the biggest polluters of greenhouse gases on Earth yet it feels it needs to import European and Japanese cars and then "gimp" them to bring the power output down by 20 or 30hp, all supposedly in the name of "emissions standards"
During the 1970s, there were "gas guzzlers" like the Challenger, Charger, Chevelle, Superbird, Camaro, Mustang Boss, etc that were all 6 litre plus jobs. I never remember the UK or Japan having gas thirsty monsters like that. Nowhere close. I can't believe that the emissions spewed out by a 1973 Skyline GT-R would be anywhere close to those. Or a 1976 Ferrari 512BB.

I personally think there's another explanation and that is the government does not want to saturate the US car market more than is necessary with non-US marques in order to keep GM, Ford etc competitive and viable. And I honestly wouldn't blame them. The first duty to any government should be to work in the interests of its citizens and products.
I think that's another reason why the collective "West" is now so anti-Chinese with the likes of MG making massive in-roads into the UK market. They fear that saturation will start to bring the prices of their own marques up, consumers will jump ship and eventually lead to bankruptcy.

 

[Strittan]

Even to this day, the Europeans are way out ahead. Again, why?

Can’t it be that it’s just a matter of culture differences? What’s the big deal? It’s the same with music, movies, food and the way houses are built. It differs depending on where you are.

Why is a football round everywhere in the world except in America?

 

[Ryan81]

Can’t it be that it’s just a matter of culture differences? What’s the big deal? It’s the same with music, movies, food and the way houses are built. It differs depending on where you are.

Why is a football round everywhere in the world except in America?

You could be right. I'm just curious as to why European marques have a lot higher end performance cars than the US or Japan. Whether it's the British, Italians, Germans, French, Swedes etc.
They seem to have a far richer history when it comes to specifically performance-oriented cars, whether road legal or in motorsports.

With music, movies, food and houses, these things aren't necessarily competing head-to-head to find which one is better. They all just exist and it's a matter of preference which one you prefer. But records (like a lap on the Nurburgring or top speed or 0-60) are there to be challenged.
Yet, since the 1980s, almost all record breaking vehicles have come from Europe. Even those American and Japanese cars that have tried are few and far between.

I know this probably sounds very anal and pedantic to many (I have a way of pi**ing people off) but I find it fascinating.

 

[HarVee]

Can’t it be that it’s just a matter of culture differences? What’s the big deal? It’s the same with music, movies, food and the way houses are built. It differs depending on where you are.

Why is a football round everywhere in the world except in America?

This is the best answer.

I won't speak for Japan, but in the U.S. we tend to favor luxury cruisers and big pickup trucks over high performance sportscars. Part of this, I think, is because of both the great depression and WWII, and as such it wasn't really until the 1950s when America gained what is to be considered its first sports car, the Corvette. That's 50 years of automotive existence in the country without a high-performance orientated vehicle that appealed to the masses.

 

[Liquid]

The roads are very different which, after thinking about it, might play a part. As @Tornado alluded to, US manufacturers haven't historically done much investment in good-handling cars or top-end sports cars because there are no inheritable benefits to the rest of the range.

To put it in very broad strokes, American cars didn't handle well because they didn't need to; American roads are generally very long, very straight and very wide in grid networks. A stylish sports car or supercar with nice handling offered nothing, couldn't be used to its potential and couldn't pass anything down to the executive and compact classes.

 

[Gorefast]

Can’t it be that it’s just a matter of culture differences? What’s the big deal? It’s the same with music, movies, food and the way houses are built. It differs depending on where you are.

Why is a football round everywhere in the world except in America?

I support this Idea. During the 20th century european carmakers were mainly comparing with other european carmakers, sometimes with their neighbours (Ferrari and Lamborghini for example). So, if there is a sportive Coupé at your rival you needed one by yourself.

That changed late in that century and suddenly american and japanese cars were also in the game. Unfortunately this didn't lead to more and better models...

I was curious about this thread as I read the headline. In a retrospective of a Sports Car fan you might be right.

 

[05XR8]

This is the best answer.

I won't speak for Japan, but in the U.S. we tend to favor luxury cruisers and big pickup trucks over high performance sportscars. Part of this, I think, is because of both the great depression and WWII, and as such it wasn't really until the 1950s when America gained what is to be considered its first sports car, the Corvette. That's 50 years of automotive existence in the country without a high-performance orientated vehicle that appealed to the masses.

Pretty much. I grew up in a time where anything smaller than a Nova(which I was always told, as a kid, was a very economical car to buy ) was a “death trap”.

 

[Scaff]

Unfortunately this didn't lead to more and better models...

Disagree on the better part, the Honda NSX most certainly changed the game in two key area for supercars, those of reliability and usability.

Prior to the NSX if you bought a supercar you accepted that reliability and usability (for example the Daytona is well know to be a dog to drive at pretty much anything but flat out and the parking 'techniques' for a Lambo's of the era are hilariously daft) weren't a given and that was simply part of the deal. The NSX was a key factor in driving a change that you could have supercar levels of performance with reliability and usability, and the European manufacturers most certainly did take notice and change.

 

[Meythia]

A stylish sports car or supercar with nice handling offered nothing, couldn't be used to its potential and couldn't pass anything down to the executive and compact classes.

That is no different in the rest of the world except for Saudi Arabia, where those who possess these cars also possess the government one way or the other.

the Honda NSX

Honda didnt want to solely stick to be "the reliable family car" brand, but they couldnt simply remove the "reliable" part without consequence. So the logical option is to be "the reliable any car" brand further on

 

[Gorefast]

Disagree on the better part, the Honda NSX most certainly changed the game in two key area for supercars, those of reliability and usability.

Prior to the NSX if you bought a supercar you accepted that reliability and usability (for example the Daytona is well know to be a dog to drive at pretty much anything but flat out and the parking 'techniques' for a Lambo's of the era are hilariously daft) weren't a given and that was simply part of the deal. The NSX was a key factor in driving a change that you could have supercar levels of performance with reliability and usability, and the European manufacturers most certainly did take notice and change.

As I read my sentence again I can see that the meaning is unclear. In my opinion the growing competition did not bring more interesting or better models of german carmakers. I think they underestimated their new rivals.

Regarding the NSX I am 100% with you. It is one reason for the success of the Porsche 911 as most of them aren't kept "species-appropriate"...

 

[ScottPuss20]

Can’t it be that it’s just a matter of culture differences? What’s the big deal? It’s the same with music, movies, food and the way houses are built. It differs depending on where you are.

Why is a football round everywhere in the world except in America?

The football isn't round in Australia.