Originally posted by Viking
Of course not ... it's a stereotype. But the thing about stereotypes is that they wouldn't exist if they weren't for the most part true. The road networks and cities of our two respective continents have been the major influence of our rather different approach to car design. While Europe's cities and roads sometimes dates back to the Roman Empire with narrow streets and tight bends designed for nothing less maneuverable than a horse; American cities and roads are mostly built after the introduction of the motor vehicle.
So in essence you can say that while in America the roads are built for cars, in Europe the cars are built for the roads.
Stereotypes may be true, but like I said, they don't tell the whole story.
Louis XIV, and everyday romantique Parisian dweebs are both "true" stereotypes of the French, despite being quite different: one's a stinking (under the tons of perfume etc) patriarch who died of gangrene (more or less), the other is a simple guy who lives on bread, water, and romance.
Neither one, nor both together, tell much more than a relatively small facet of the complete story.
It's the same with automotive experience in the US, or in Europe, or anywhere else..
Transportation and automotion only have in common their physical medium. You really can't tie together the two, much more than you can tie together the means and ends of Louis the 14th and said dweeb.
I think this (comparing apples and oranges as is comparing US and EU or even JP cars) is pretty similar to guns or plants and animals - adapting to their environment.
Look at Clarkson's review of the old and new supercars: he prefered the F40 because it was, in his opinion, what a supercar was supposed to be, specificaly, "ass-seat-road", no gimmicks.
That's a few layers of interpretation, taste and arbitrary judgement: "prefered", "in his opinion", "supposed to be", etc.
Design with a capital D will always tend towards specialization, towards perfection. The efficiency and accuracy of this is rational, and therefore measurable.
Taste is not bound by reason.
What is gimmicky in european cars, to some people, might be an essential and yet intangible part of a good car.
Look at Lazs' interpretation of "comfort": a TownCar. Others might say it is not comfortable, so much as a big barge that wallows over the ground instead of (like say a luxury AMG) adaptively gluing to almost any road like a gecko, firmly and precisely absorbing everything under it.
Clarkson only keeps the audience's attention because he manages to present some facts said audience may not have thought of, whether by the means of comic or emotional or any other appeals.
Imagine if he reviewed WWII warbirds instead of cars, the same way he does on TopGear.. it would still make for some comic relief, but not much more. It's just stand up comedy with some facts as supporting skeleton.
It's just TV, just entertainment, showcasing. TV doesn't tell you what you like, you do.
Function and fashion are, in my opinion, two different manifestations of the same thing.
