Some Points about Cars--Particularly, Are American Cars (Finally) Good Enough?

First, latest vehicle crash test results from the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an insurance-industry body) show that many small car models fare very well in crash tests. This means that people who have been choosing enormous vehicles like SUVs because these large vehicles are perceived as safer in a crash, can start to consider smaller and more economical vehicles.

Second, a new government window sticker on new cars will begin appearing on 2012 models (and on all cars starting with the 2013 model year). It not only shows city, highway, and combined fuel economy ratings for that vehicle; but will also show (1) expected fuel costs over 5 years; (2) a numerical ranking which indicates how that car compares to other vehicles; and (3) another ranking that gives an indication of that vehicle's environmental impact.

I am particularly happy to see number 3 above, because I don't think that very many car buyers give much thought to the environmental impact that the vehicle they're buying is going to have. But even without the new ranking, there's one very simple fact they might consider: greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle are proportional to the fuel consumed. Simply put, lower gas mileage (more gas used) means more greenhouse emissions.

Third, domestic cars seem to be getting better—and they had a long way to go, in terms of assembly quality and performance characteristics.

Let's look back quite a ways: There was a popularity for foreign, and particularly British sports cars, starting perhaps around the late 1950s and continuing for maybe two decades. This is supposedly due to American servicemen discovering some of these cars when they were overseas, around the end of WWII, and maybe even bringing them home. These cars offered better performance than American cars and were just more fun to drive.

Now, an important fact to keep in mind: When I talk about performance I'm not just talking about a car having zippy acceleration or higher top speed. Many foreign models also showed better handling characteristics: better cornering, better braking, more responsive steering.

For decades American cars lagged in these qualities (and American car buyers often did not pay attention to them, either). American cars had soft suspensions (springing) that made for a soft but wallowy ride—these cars' noses would dive under braking and they would roll during cornering—which implies poor handling during an abrupt maneuver such as in an emergency. American car makers believed that was what American car buyers wanted--a soft ride even if achieved at the expense of handling characteristics. Intrinsically, the two—ride and handling--are mutually exclusive, although more sophisticated, and inevitably more expensive, suspension designs permit good handling characteristics with less compromise of ride comfort.

Over the years American cars have come to incorporate some more sophisticated mechanical designs, both in their engines and in their chassis. But even when a U.S. car model was based on a European model—and I could give a number of examples of this, from the last 10 or 15 years—that European chassis, with its better handling characteristics, would be "dumbed down" for the American market—that is, ride characteristics would be made softer, sacrificing the car's handling qualities.

Now we're starting to get U.S. cars with decent handling, whether based on European chassis or not. People who value good handling qualities can be glad that now we can get Detroit cars that are more equivalent to European cars.

Let's look at some models that Chevrolet has offered. Their small model at one point was the Cavalier, which was regarded as not a very good car by the automobile press.

That model was followed by the Cobalt. Evidently the Cobalt was better than the Cavalier, but maybe still not good enough, because now we hear that the Cobalt's successor, the Cruze, is better than the Cobalt was.

And Chrysler, until this year, had been offering a model called the Sebring, which was almost universally said to be not a very good car, in many ways. Now the Sebring has been replaced by the 200—which evidently is substantially better than the Sebring but maybe still not good enough.

So I wonder why, in so many cases and for so many years, Detroit—which must know how to make a good car, and undoubtedly employs an awful lot of very competent engineering talent--has been content to make "better but still not good enough" cars. GM (maker of Chevrolet) might just be wising up; and Ford, too, has been bringing out good cars. Chrysler is lagging behind the other two.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein