hey /o/, legitimate question: why do america and europe follow

Cheap gas
Big distances to cover

Europe is all about that hp/liter and high technology while we use what's tried, trued and efficient.

>>17145705
Europe has expensive costs for fuel, while America has cheap costs for fuel. Europeans also don't drive much, their city centers are pretty densely populated and urban sprawl is limited, meanwhile in America, we built up the entire country, we have large swaths of lands for our streets, our country land is all built up with farms and shit, so we need to be able to travel longer distances.

Europeans build cars that work within their premises, we build cars that work within ours. They need to be efficient, we need to be reliable, they need to be built well to last, while we have the mentality and easability of just replacing things.

It's just how our countries' are made up.

We're beginning to become more densely populated so we're also building smaller cars that are more efficient, while they can have fun with large powerful cars, but their people don't really require them, that's why America is their largest buyer for all of those neat exotics and limousines.

High compression ratios and RPMs reduces engine life. Murrica's underpowered-for-their-size fuckhuge V8s are built to last hundreds of thousands of miles even if you're going WOT all the time. This is obviously barring performance versions that make more impressive horsepower. The consumer-grade american V8 will outlive the rest of the car because it's never truly stressed.

Also low-end torque for hauling families of fat fucks around.

Americans cant make engines

so what I'm understanding is that america's theory comes from
>long distance, relatively low RPM, low end cruising is what most large-engine vehicles will do
europe's theory comes from
>densely packed areas requiring minimized sizes with maximal power so that it still has the ability to get around and deal with city driving
sidenote, I still find it funny how this continues over even to diesels, in the sense that
>american diesels
>big engines, massive low end power, low rpm
>meant to tow tanks and shit, all about torque
>european modern diesels
>smaller, car engines designed for a gasser powerband/feel with diesel economy
>generally loses the low end grunt, all built around drivability
certainly interesting phenomena

>>17145705
>throw displacement at a problem
Not really. Not every manufacturer is GM or Chrysler that uses objectively inferior pushrods.

>>17145890
Ford did it too until the Ecoboost bullshit.

>>17145925
>t. pushcuck

>>17145890
at least GM can make good motors anyway, or build good cars around them
kikesler is just fucking bad

File: 1443328017895.jpg (78KB, 880x558px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 880x558px

>>17145952