The Cellar - Gas Prices: Who's to Blame?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 463341)

Sycamore again posts irrelevant numbers because he did not grasp what was posted.

GM developed a 70 Hp/liter engine in the early 1970s. Honda, et al developed their 70 Hp/liter engines about 1992. 30 years later and 15 years after everyone else sells 70 Hp/liter engines, GM still does not sell 70 Hp/liter engines in all vehicles. Sycamore posts 1988 Honda numbers to prove that engine did not exist after 1992? That is proof? Sycamore - read numbers? 1992 is after 1988. Get in the game.

GM products, 13+ years after developing a the 70 HP/liter engine, had 10% LOWER performance, lower gas mileage, higher pollution, more interior noise, higher failure rates, higher production costs, etc. Sycamore also forgot to post the standard number for most 1988 GM products - only 52 Hp/liter - 17% less performance. No wonder GM would teeter on bankruptcy in 1991. Numbers before 1992 demonstrate GM products were worse even before 70 Hp/liter became the world standard. Sycamore – how do I make this any simpler?

I have probably confused Sycamore by claiming 1988 and 1992 are different years. Nine numbers and two paragraphs. Sycamore foolishly praised GM's 2008 J-car that is finally doing mid-1990 gas mileage numbers. GM's J-car was renamed after a long history of bad products. The Vega, Sunbird, Cavalier, and Cadillac Cimarron all were the same J-car platform. Cobalt is a J-car now renamed. Putting lipstick on a pig does not make a thoroughbred.

No wonder GM stock is now worth less today than in 1982. GM stifled technology for 30 years. GM opposed every higher mileage standards. It's still the J-car doing today what the world was doing 10 years ago. Sycamore again forgot to read (grasp) numbers before posting.

Of course, TheMercenary or UG would then call Sycamore a dumb fuck because he acted as one - buying and praising a GM product that is 10 years obsolete. But that is what they do - attack others.

Well, Tommy, you certainly wrote a lot of words...words that mean nothing, because--again--you have provided no support of your statements. Some of what you've posted might be indeed facts, but since only you and 20 other people probably know of it, it would help if you provided sources.

Now, let's get to the meat here. Remember this thread? Let review some of your cute statements:

Quote:

40 MPG is standard mileasge for Cobalt sized cars even 15 years ago.

I used 1998 numbers from our friends at the EPA, but let's go with some 1993 models, okay?

Cavalier: 26/33
Civic: 35/41
Corolla: 23/31
323: 25/33

So...what standard are you talking about from 1993?

Quote:

Did you do numbers on that Saturn Astra? It finally has what has been standard all over the world for almost 20 years - the 70 HP/liter engine.

To which I pulled the following information:

1988 Toyota Corolla with 4A-F engine: 59hp/L
1988 Honda Civic with 1500cc engine: 61hp/L
1988 Chevy Cavalier with 2.0L engine: 55hp/L

Almost 20 years? What does that mean? That generally means 19 or 18 to me...not 15 or 16. Who's having problems with numbers now?

But let's go with 1993 models, shall we? Nah, let's go with the first model year of a new generation after the glorious 70hp/L motor became the "world standard":

1996 Honda Civic DX (with the D16Y7 engine): 1.5L, 115hp, 66hp/L
1995 Chevy Cavalier (with the GM 122 engine): 2.2L, 110hp, 50hp/L
1998 Toyota Corolla (with the 1ZZ-FE engine): 1.8L, 120hp, 67hp/L

(All of these are from their respective Wikipedia entries...who the hell would try and doctor some shit like this?)

Close...that's not 70, though. Again, who's having problems with numbers now?

I'm in the game, Tommy. I'm at Citizens Bank Park, waiting for the first pitch at the Phillies game. Meanwhile, you're sitting over at a ball field somewhere in Montgomery County all alone, wondering where the action is.

You hear that whooshing sound, Tommy? Listen closely...

*whoooooooosh*

That's the sound of the last remaining pieces of your credibility slipping away.