I keep thinking about this. There are companies that you like, and companies that you dislike. How far do yo go out of your way to do business with a company that you like?

You may dislike Exxon for hiring drunken oil tanker captains. Do you pass by the Exxon station even though it's the nearest one to you?

I like Fresh Fields, but it's not nearby. So, I go there once out of every three trips or so.

I like my car's company but I eish I LOVED my car's company.

Whaddya think?

Interesting...

I like Acme because it is nearby. However, I am getting really irritated with the level of customer service displayed, so I'm thinking of switching to SuperFresh or Shop Rite. Same with Rite Aid--nearby, but poor customer service. And I already work for one of their competitors...

I hate Ford...they're evil. They're little credit card venture has put a dent in a lot of people's pockets. I hate Chrysler too...I don't know why they are still considered part of the big 3.

I don't mind Exxon...we didn't have Exxons in St. Louis when Joe Hazelwood had one too many. And I love Mobil...good gasoline. And since they're both one and the same now...

As a personal banking customer, I like First Onion. As a business customer, I don't like First Onion...they suck.

--
Sycamore--freed from my work hell
Sycamoreland--http://syc75.tripod.com
ICQ--7810696

hmmm... actually I do think about this from time to time, I believe strongly in voting with my wallet, though I'm not sure how really effective it is - nonetheless, it makes me feel better.

I won't buy gas from Exxon, though at this point it is moot since they merged with Mobil. It wasn't so much the accident as the arrogance afterwards that bothered me... not that the accident was a good thing.

I won't buy anything from a large national chain that I can buy from a locally owned shop. I want the local stores to survive, mostly because they generally have better customer service.

I won't do business with Staples, Guitar Center, Mars Music, or Wal-Mart because they make absolutely no effort to pay attention to their customers, at least in the stores I've visited. I sometimes wonder how they stay in business.

I like Fresh Fields a lot, but I also like Thriftway, decent products, better than average customer services, and fair prices, and they keep the store pretty darned clean (one place where Fresh Fields could improve!)

I like Volkswagon as a company because they seem to get it, they want my business, but at the same time they don't take themselves too seriously... which in the past has certainly hurt them.

I could probably come up with other examples...

Re: What companies do you like?
 

Know the facts. For example:

Exxon - generally a very environmentally responsible company having developed many of the emmission limiting systems that the automakers refused to install and limiting service station pollution long before it was required. Ironically, one Exxon division becomes so cost controlled that tanker crews were 'operating on empty'. Exxon Valdez was so understaffed that the crew was exhausted. Furthermore, when Exxon Valdez was to arrive in the US, its crew numbers were to be reduced again. This cost control mentality was contrary to Exxon's overall corporate philosophy.

However who created the world's largest oil spill? Mobil. They leaked oil into Brooklyn ground water, knew it for ten years, made no effort to halt the leaks, then tried to place all other Brooklyn oil company sites for contributing to the oil spill. The oil spill in Brooklyn's aquafier is three times the size of the Exxon Valdez (in oil quantity).

Why then does everyone blame Exxon when Mobil traditionally fought environmental protection. About 5 years ago, all PA area Mobil stations had to have recently installed tanks dug up again - because Mobil cost controled the new tank installations rather than install them correctly. Why did you not konw this?

Then there is the famous 60 Minutes Story about gas station tank leakage where a whole town was slowly poisoned by a Mobil gas station leak. Mobil denied they created the leak and tried to blame the other (Amoco?) station. Then the 60 Minutes interview of Exxon's president who said - look we know these gas tanks have degreaded prematurely and are leaking. We (Exxon) cannot find them fast enough. However the Mobil vice president said that this is not a problem and only exists in some isolated incidents. That is why all oil company gas stations spent the $30,000 to replace their oil tanks. But cost control mentality Mobil oil could not even do it correctly the first time and was caught cheating by the state of PA.

Why don't you know this story?



VW: up to five years ago some of the worst cars in the world with GM reliability. Now they have Ford reliability. But their commericals are the source of their reputation. They are not a top notch automaker - but so many make decisions using emotion rather than facts. Therefore VW has a good reputation - especially among those who use replace emotion more than logic to decide - the youngsters. VW is only excellent to those who worship what they are told in TV commmericals. VW is only an average automaker. People who know cars know that VW is far behind both Toyota and Honda.

Supermarkets: why does Redners make a profit and yet sell groceries at such lower prices. Example - 1 gallon of Tropicana Orange Juice sells at Acme for almost $5 whereas Redners sells only for $4. Cereals sell at Acme for almost $1 more per box. Where are all these Acme, Giant, Genardis, and Clemens higher prices going? And why do I get surcharges at the latter if I don't have their ID card? Why do I have to carry all their ID cards to get advertised special prices when Redners does not require this silly card?

Rite-Aid: of course you know of the massive fraud conducted by the Camp Hill PA based company?

First Union: read this weeks The Economist for a discussion of First Union - and in particular what happened in PA to Core States.

Chrysler - there has been no big three for some time now that Chrysler is part of the Daimler Benz, Chrysler, Mitsubishi consortium. Chrysler is a foreign based company.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Well, their track record on environmental issues is not as bad as some, but their arrogance in the face of a highly visible accident was inecusable.
<snipped again>

Originally posted by tw
Why don't you know this story?[/quote]

A very good question! Guess Mobil has a better PR firm.
Originally posted by tw
VW: up to five years ago some of the worst cars in the world <real big snip>[/quote]

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here... I've owned six volkswagons over the last 19 years, and my experience has been excellent. Two died untimely deaths, but I walked away from both, and all but one of the others were very cheap to operate. One went 210K miles with no major repairs, and in fact had a stone not flown up and cracked the transmission case it might still be running. Another went 180K miles including several seasons of rallying at the trap and pro levels. OK, it had a couple of repairs, but they were driver inflicted. The one bad apple was an 84 Jetta that ate tires and exhaust systems, no major repairs, but the eating habits were annoying, especially since it used an oddball tire made only by (you guessed it) Pirelli.

Even more important than all that though is they are fun to drive!

<more snipping - I measure grocery stores and pharmacies on customer service first, I'll gladly pay a small surcharge for better service...

I am sorry I left good old FU off my list of companies I dislike though. As one who barely survived the Meridian / Core States merger, I was none too happy with First Union and took my business to a smaller bank, who sadly has decided that they too want to be a bigger bank, leaving me shopping once again.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

I used to work for Clemens IT department. Hell, I used to BE Clemens' IT department.

Differences in price at supermarkets can generally be traced back to a few things. One, how they operate wrt warehousing. Two, what corners they cut wrt labor.

I am shocked and appalled every time I visit a Redners. Their merchandizing, layout, produce, bakery, all is crap crap crap. The floors are dirty. The cereal aisle has cereal on the floor. The registers are the ancient NCR that were aging really fast in 1994.

The things that you can see will echo things that you can't see. That's what's frightening. How long did a pallet of milk sit on the dock on that summer day? How long ago was that ground beef ground, and how long did it sit before being packaged and labeled? Did the price change make it into the system, or are 5% of the prices different between the shelf and the register? Did someone spray insecticide onto the bakery shelves accidentally and not care? If the freezer stops freezing, how long until someone notices, and what happens to the goods that were temporarily thawed?

Clemens took over a Shop n Bag in Lansdale. They redid it before re-opening as a Clemens. Everything was replaced. They found wooden racking in the butcher department - racking that had been illegal for five years. Where were the inspectors? Nobody could say.

Surely, Redners also does the sort of mass buying and merchandising that makes these kinds of deals possible. I *suppose* I would trust the cereal boxes, although not in August and September when it's bug season. I don't know that I would trust the OJ.

Hey, man, you can't just judge a car by quality and reliability. Well, you CAN, but it's a measure of how much of your life has soul.

And ironically. The Japanese have quality, engineering, and... no soul. They are toasters. There are exceptions, like the speedsters (many of which are no longer made), and the Miata, and the old MR2.

European rides are sensuous. They're art. They let you feel the road. You can hear the motor, because you're supposed to; and you drive them with a clutch, because why? Because that's the way real people drive, that's why. Because you are in full control of your car, because you are an adult and competent.

If the price to pay for that is maybe one more problem per two years, and maybe one tow every 10 years, instead of every 20, that's a small price to pay.

Re: What companies do you like?
 

If you hear the engine, then it is a design problem. Higher perforance engines are obvious - they make less noise. That's why they have higher performance.

Those who known nothing about cars like to advertise the fact. They are most notorious in 5.0 liter Mustangs - one of the world's lowest performance cars - made obvious by the noise of the engine.

Re: Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Milk is a benchmark I am very sensitive to. Too many Acme gallons of milk were bad before the expiration date. Redner's milk has remains good long after the expiration date. But then that is how responsible and empowered Redner employees appear to be.

I always seem to run out of milk and bread just the day before the big snow. Acme and Giant were completely sold out of milk the morning before. But Redners had plenty. Some days later I stumbled onto the diary area manager. He had watched the weather forecasts, saw the coming storm, and ordered a triple order of milk. That explains the comments I heard from one employee during the 'milk rush' (while standing in those long lines - every cash register was open) when he reported all milk was now moved to the shelf. They ordered in advance because at Redeners, the employees were empowered to make purchasing descisions.

Milk prematurely aging? I only seen it in stores that also sell that milk for a higher price - and did not have any milk or bread just before the big snow storm.

I don't care if they are NCRs of 1994 (which they are not) or the floor requires a broom. The food must be clean and good quality. Milk is an excellent benchmark of more empowered employees. The Acme in Lansdale quickly lost my business when the milk was spoiled the day I bought it. Another (name forgotten) when the Coke was bad. How can you sell bad Coke? All three 2 liter bottle were bad - but the store was clean.

This brings up one of the things that I love about this city...

In general (at least here in Torresdale and most of the Northeast), we do not have a whole helluva lot of fast food restaurants. Sure, we have a McDonald's, Taco Bell, KFC, etc. However, since moving here, I have noticed that they are definitely fewer and further between...nowhere near the numbers I've seen in the other cities in which I have lived.

And why? Because of all the local pizza joints/sandwich shops/restaurants/whatever. Sure, we may be a fat city, but we definitely eat well...and help the locals to boot.

Well that was very italian of you, syc. Pittsburgh is the same way, too...if anything we value good food and good culture. Just as an example, my cousin gets his doctorate in some Big Name Field(tm), and moves to Georgia for a job, but every year comes home for christmas to eat pasta in my grnadmother's basement, and always leaves with a few pounds of Isaly's chipped ham (real chipped ham). He used to get Wise potato chips, too, but they've gone national.

[quote]Originally posted by alphageek31337

Quote:

Well that was very italian of you, syc.

Might as well do something Italian. Everyone thinks I'm Italian because of my looks, but to my immediate knowledge, I am not.

It's as much blood as it is attitude. Italian is big families, good food, good wine, reverence, respect, love, more good food, more good wine, kinship, and subtle nuances that escape me at the moment. Italian is also using "Ey!" as a proper greeting, but for family only (though family pretty much includes anyone who hasn't pissed you off yet).

This all got away from my original thinking. About "What companies do you like?"

Maybe it should be "What companies do you NOT like." And what makes you not like a company.

We all associate good things and bad things with logos and icons and names, and stuff.
For instance, instinctively, when I say 'Philip Morris' you probably recoil in horror. What if I say 'Philadelphia cream cheese' or 'Jell-O' or 'Foster's Lager' or 'Breyers Ice Cream' or 'Altoids Mints' or 'Miller Genuine Draft' or 'Post Grape-Nuts' or 'Kool-Aid' or 'Sanka'.

These are all brand names under the Philip Morris umbrella.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Engines make noise largely because they have explosions occurring inside them. Lots of other reasons too, but that's the big one. Cars where you hear the engine less are generally that way because the engine has been tuned to reduce noise at the expense of performance, or because there's more sound insulation, or both. And of course it's hard to separate engine noise from exhaust noise, so the exhaust system comes into it too.

As for the venerable 302, it's hardly low-performance. Low tech, yes, but not low performance.

Re: What companies do you like?
 

205 or 215 horsepower divided by 5.0 liters is 41 or 43 Hp per liter - one of the lowest performance, fuel injected, auto engines in the world at that time. The Mustang 5.0 obviously is a low performance engine. Energy that should have been moving the car instead advertises its low performance - loudly. You can tell a low performance engine either by the sound or by the arithmetic. Either way, the obsolete technology Ford 302 is a low performance engine.

So why did they make it? A few engineers were collected to throw together a car using existing parts (minimal design) to sell to those who cannot do the math - the Mustang 5.0. It was designed for people who know nothing about cars but who are impressed by G forces on their sexual organs.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Horsepower per liter doesn't measure anything particularly interesting in terms of performance. Displacement has no negative impact on performance that justifies dividing by it.

Re: Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

True enough, but it does say something about the level of engineering which went into an engine.

Here's a case in point. A friend of mine once had a mid-70s vintage GM car which had a 4 liter straight 6 cylinder engine that yielded 120 HP. That works out to 30 HP/L. At the same time, I was driving a '95 Dodge Neon, with a 2-leter 4 cylinder engine that yielded 150 HP. That's 75 HP/L. The Neon, as you might expect, got better mileage, better performance, and was probably more reliable (although this old beast <b>was</b> still going after ~25 years, so make of it what you will).

The lesson? Better engineering in the case of the newer car yielded a more effecient <b>and</b> more powerful engine. In the older car, GM engineers simply tried to give it more power by making the engine bigger- and less fuel-effecient. That's indicative of less engineering know-how going into an engine.

Y'see?
Z

Re: Re: Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Not necessarially less engineering know-how. Perhaps just less engineering *effort*. They didn't put much work into making cars more fuel-efficent 'cause it wasn't worth trying when gas was 25 cents a gallon.

Although I am sure that they would not have been able to achieve what can be done now even if they *had* tried.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

It's a very indirect measure of that, and I think mostly only holds because the larger engines tended to be the older engines. The C5 Corvette engine is certainly well engineered, but no V8 is going to get as high an HP/l engine as a small 4.

Re: What companies do you like?
 

Once upon a time, cars were designed in companies run by 'car guys'. The average performance 350 cu in engine output about 200 horsepower. 1960 engineers also developed high performance versions - including the famous 350/350. That was 350 cubic inches producing 350 horsepower. That was high performance.

Then came the 1970s, MBAs, pollution problems, cost controls, etc. So how to you produce high performance engines when the top man is a cost controller? You lie. In this thread are classic symptoms of those lies. You make people think that high performance means big engines. That is the same propaganda technique was used on Madision Ave to addict 14 year olds. Twist the truth so that the many 'feel' they know - the facts be damned.

Making decisions based upon feelings: a murder of seven Challenger astronauts, plug-in surge protectors, blaming Japan when the American economy was shit, not blaming Spindler and Sculley for the destruction of innovation in Apple Computers, "there was plenty of blame to go around", the price of gasoline is too high. All are conclusion based upon feel rather than upon fact. It is just what makes 'spin doctors' so rich.

NACAR is a classic example. They use a 5.7 liter engine to only go 140 MPH. Indy racers use something around a 2.x engine to go 220 MPH - IOW put almost 2.5 times more engery in the car with less than half the engine.

Horsepower per liter does measure high performance. Anybody can build a 10 liter engine. Design News demonstrated how three engineers designed and prototyped a 7 liter engine in just over 3 months. It was big. Using the logic of russotto, it was high performance. It was not high performance. The engineers said so. It was a big, low performance engine - which is what they needed. They needed a higher horsepower engine where size was not relevant. IOW they threw together a low performance, higher power engine.

GM performance from this months Consumer Reports: Chevy, Buick, Pontiac and GMC sell 14 basic engines with various degrees of performance.

Two 4 cylinder engines are 1.8 liters : 69 Hp/liter actually designed by Toyota AND the 2.0 liter : 63 Hp/liter engine by Iszuzu. GM's own 2.2 come in 52 and 53 Hp/liter - clearly lower perforance engines for 2000 standards but high performance engines by 1960s standards.

V-6 engines. 3.1 liter comes in 55 or 56 Hp/l versions. 3.4 liter engine has four performance variations - 50, 51, 53, and 54. The 3.8 has two performances - 53 & 54 Hp/liter. The 4.3 is the dog still made mostly for SUVs at 41, 44, and 46 HP/l. Why upgrade the dog when look what just came off the drawing board: a model year 2002 Chevy Avalanche contains their new 4.2 liter enginer - a 64 Horsepower per liter engine. Amazing! Chevy sells an average performance engine. Why the higher perforance? Even GM eventually let their engineers sell current technology - all be it too late.

V-8 engines are also low performance since they are really only for those who 'feel' rather than think - those who think big means high performance.

4.8 liter : 46 and 57 Hp/liter
5.3 : 53 Hp/l
5.7 : 53, 54, 56, and a special 57 Hp/l only for Camaro.
6.0 : 46 Hp/l

However I left out one engine recently designed. A new higher performance version of the 5.7 has finally arrived just for the Corvette. All other 5.7 liter engines remain low performance. But this last year, the Corvette now has 67 Hp/liter - average performance engine (which I understand they did with only two valves per cylinder!).

If Hp/liter did not measure performance, then why do the high performance cars get high performance engines - as indicated by Horsepower per liter? Why do older technology engines with less machine tolerances also get lower horsepower per liter? Why? Hp/l measures performance.


Let's look at other automakers. Lexus cars have five versions of three engines - all between 70 and 73 Horsepower per liter. No wonder Lexus are so quiet, responsive, reliable and have better performance.

Acura has seven versions of three engines in various performance levels of 64, 69, 70, 78, 81, 94 and 108 horsepower per liter (all fuel injected - no superchargers or turbochargers). Acura, a higher performance automobile also demonstrates that Horsepower per liter measures performance.

Porshe: 78 and 80 Horsepower per liter.

Toyota makes a high performance car called Celica at 78 Hp/liter AND 100 horsepower per liter. Honda makes the high performance S2000: 120 horsepower per liter. At 2 liters, this high performance car produces more horsepower than a 5.0 Mustang. Why? 5.0 Mustangs always were low performance cars.

Even in turbo and supercharged vehicles, the Hp/liter holds. Audi TT - a car almost impossible to obtain in Europe or the US is 100 and 125 Hp per liter only using turbocharing. Turbocharged VW and Audi A4 only do about 94 Hp/liter. Did you know that the Buick Regal /Park Ave and Pontiac Gran Prix have supercharged engines? Therefore they must be higher performance than Audis and VWs. Wrong. These GM products are a pathetic 63 horsepower per liter - making GMs supercharged products even inferior to every non-turbo / non-superchargeds Lexus!

Again Hp/liter measures performance.

Of course if you are Madison Ave, then you know the public is stupid. They can be made to believe anything (including a George Bush promise to protect the environment and to protect human rights). Therefore lie to the nieve. Get them to think high performance is a big engine - fast car. That is just what NASCAR has you believe.

Although NASCARs are much higher performance than licensed vehicles, they are low performance compared to most racing cars. NASCAR uses the biggest engines to go the slowest. In racing, NASCAR can lie to a public easily decieved (one that actually believed smoking was good for your health). You see it in previous posts of this thread. Some actually believe that Horsepower per liter does not measure performance.

Big never measured performance. If it did then Russians would have the world's highest performance jet fighters. Performance ,even in fighter planes, is measured by things such as more horsepower per pound of engine.

Size never measured performance - except where people are easily decieved.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

For all Cellar males - T-shirts with this quote are available for purchase and can be added to your Cellar Shopping Cart.

Re: What companies do you like?
 

What 'Image of the Day' goes with it?

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

That's quite a rant, but what it lacks is any indication of why HP/l should be considered a measure of performance. The RX/7 13B twin turbo would probably be the highest performance engine ever sold in America, with an astonishing 194 hp/l (255hp @ 1300cc). Yet while it is a high perfomance engine, it's not considered astoundingly superior to anything else out there. That's because while hp/l is an interesting benchmark, and also has some relevance due to foreign taxes on displacement, it's not a particularly good measure of performance.

Re: What companies do you like?
 

You would compare a rotary engine to a piston engine? Why not just compare a ramjet with an electric motor. To make your point, you must compare a wankel to a wankel. You compared apples to oranges AND provides no science facts to support your claim.

Hp / liter measures performance. Some would falsely claim that a bigger engine is high performance engine because they are victims of 'feeling' rather than 'thinking'? The current Liza Thomas Laury 'feeling' of high performance was generated by Madison Ave propaganda - to coverup that America in and after the 1970s made NO high performance auto engines. Horsepower per liter is an accurate performance measurement for similar engines.

Those lower performance engines also are machined to much poorer tolerances - of course. They are, for example, the 1960s technology engines that are still so popular in low performance, overhyped GM products.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Sure, they both run on gasoline, right? Of course, it is a silly comparison -- but it only underscores the meaninglessness of hp/l as a measure of performance.

Re: Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

A motor and human both run on alcohol. Using your logic, we should compare the performance of these two "apples and oranges".

However if we used valid statistics, then clearly horsepower per liter is a standard measure of performance for internal combustion engines of the same technology.

Then there is always someone who wants to distort numbers to compare a Stanley steamer (external combustion) engine to a Diesel (internal combustion) engine just to prove themselves correct. The Stanley Steamer has a big boiler, therefore lower performance?

Russotto - performance is measured by horsepower per liter which proves that the 5.0 Liter Mustang is one of the world's low performance engines. Ford engineers knew this. They also knew that many don't understand performance (or cars) and therefore would buy these obsolete technologies as if they were high tech. Your comparison of 'apples to oranges' only suggests that you are a target market for this low performance, high volume, overhyped, low reliability vehicle. People who know cars understand that the 5.0 Mustang (and most GM cars) are low performance vehicles - products to be avoided due to their obsolete technologies, low reliabilities, and excessively high prices.

People who know race cars also know that NASCAR are low performance, obsolete technology race cars. Ahhh but hype is what attracts those who 'feel' rather than 'think'. Most NASCAR fans who also don't know anything about racing. Of course a NASCAR fan probably would not say "anything". He would say "shit". But then that also is indicative of his knowledge.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Actually, I run on ATP. Alcohol must go through many transformations before it becomes useful as a fuel.

[quote]
However if we used valid statistics, then clearly horsepower per liter is a standard measure of performance for internal combustion engines of the same technology.
[quote]

Argument by assertion is pointless.

Argument by insult doesn't work too well either. Actually, I drive a car with a 1.8L 135hp engine.

The problem with using hp/l as a measure of performance is it indicates that increasing the displacement of an engine somehow reduces its performance. It gives the impression, for example, that a 1.0l engine which develops 75hp is higher performance than a 2.0l engine which develops 130hp -- even if the engines are the same weight and approximately the same size.

gentlemen, gentlemen! surely we can agree that there are other things worth measuring in a vehicle besides the relative power of its engine. cars must provide power to the wheels but they must also do so much more. they must, for example, stop once in a while. they must turn. and their front passenger space must provide adequate room for oral sex.

maybe hp/l is an adequate measure of similarly sized engines. i would venture to guess that the mentioned stang 5.0L and its 215 hp is downright cruddy and laughable next to the BMW M5, whose 4.9L engine produces 394 hp. (that's 80hp/l in a massively sized engine which i'm sure is a major feat)

i get to make the point since i started the damn thread and you people changed the subject. although i am a big fan of the BMW and a Ford-basher in general, there are times when i'd rather have the stang. granted most of those times are when i want a POS car to park on south st. but money is an object to the engineers as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

But they are not the same weight or size. Increasing displacement also does not decrease performance. A 2 liter engine gets 140 Hp. An equivalent 5 liter engine gets 350 Hp. They have the same performance. A standard performance 3.5 liter V-6 engine gets about 240 Hp. To get 240 Hp from an obsolete technology (low performance) engine, that would be a 4.7 liter V-8 in the Jeep Grand Cherokee. To get the same horsepower, the low performance engine adss more pistons, valves, block, head, fuel injectors, etc. IOW lower performance results in a larger engine and a vehicle that costs more to build.

Guess what. GM low performance engined cars cost more to build than equally equipped Mercedes Benz - because GM uses lesser technology, lower performance. This is further confirmed by a well know industry fact - GM earns no profits on their automobiles - using SUVs to cover up auto losses.

Whether it is a 1.8 liter 135 Hp engine or a 5.7 liter. Both will have the same performance if designed and machined to the same technologies. Based upon the 1.8 liter performance, then how many horse should the 5.7 produce? 425 Hp. The Corvette only does 385 Hp because it does not have the same performance - the Corvette it is a lesser designed engine hyped to the ignorant as a high performance automobile.

This is true, except for the oral sex part. You shouldn't be doing that while driving, and if you're stopped, the bed of a station wagon is a much more appropriate place. Also if you do it in the parking lot of an office park in the front seat, the people on the third floor get to see you. (laughed our asses off, we did).

But for measuring the performance of the engine, hp/L is inappropriate. It simply fails to measure anything of value. If it were possible to build an engine with twice the displacement but the same weight and form factor as another engine with the same power, those engines would have the same performance; the hp/L measure would show the larger-displacement engine as having half the performance. This is silly.

[/b][/quote]

Re: What companies do you like?
 

Notice a continued denial without a single example, cited trend, engineering principa, or supporting fact. Russotto would have you believe that since a 2 liter engine and a 5 liter engine both output the same horsepower, then both are equal performance. That is silly. The higher performance 2 liter engine also weights less, occupies less space, is more reliable, and is quieter.

Demonstrated perviously was the average performance Acura V-6 compared to a low performance Jeep that required a V-8. Jeep requires two extra pistons, extra valves, cams lobes, rings, fuel injection system, more block and head, bigger body to hold the largers, low performance Jeep engine, heavier suspension, and larger tires - all because Jeep is a low performance vehicle.

Russotto's only example is to compare a Wankel technology engine to an Otto technology engine, cite the different Hp/liter (as it should be), then declare Hp/l as no measure of performance. Why not compare a jet engine to a nuclear power plant? What, other than his opinion, has Russotto provided to disprove the Hp/liter ratio?

Reams of evidence demonstrates that Horsepower per liter is and was used to measure performance. We know that more energy to create sound means less energy for shaft Horsepower. Previous reams of numbers demonstrate that trend. We know that higher performance engines are machined to post-1970 tolerances whereas lower performance engines are machines to pre-1970 tolerances. Again the Horsepower per liter ratio quantifies that fact.

Furthermore we know that car companies run by engineers will increase engine performances. Acura 1999 Hp/liter for same engines: 78/94/-/65/67/70/61/69. Acura 2001 Hp/liter for same engines: 78/94/108/70/81/70/64/69 ('-' that version of engine did not exist in 1999). Acura over two years continues to increase performance as demonstrated by Horsepower per liter. Again Hp/liter ratio quantifies that fact.

Toyota Hp/l for 1999/2001 models: Avalon - 67 up to 70; Camry - 61 & 65 up to 68 & 65; Celica - 67 upgrades to 78 & 100; Corrolla - 67 upgraded to 69. Rav4 - 63 upgraded to 74; Sienna - 65 upped to 70. Again Hp/liter ratio quantifies that fact.

Obviously Hp/Liter measures performance as indicated by the sound, by improved machine tolerance, by the long previous examples of GM vs so many engineer designed cars, AND no by the continuous improvement in performances as demonstrated by Acura and Toyota.

My statements are supported by facts. Horsepower per liters is an accurate measure of engine performance - AND a logical benchmark to determine what companies should earn your praise and ire. Horsepower per liter also is an excellent measure of the good vs. evil automobile manufacturers. Due to their low performance products (and the resulting loss of American jobs), all should put GM on their list of disliked companies. Horsepower per liter suggests who should be earning your approval.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Sorry, I don't quite follow this one.

I got 18 more horses out of my pea-shooter by putting a dynomax exhaust and a 2 1/2" pipe on my car. in the process, it got loud as shit. so how does a low performance engine equate to noisy? the math got better, but the noise got worse...

how bout a formula 1. pushed one into valley forge convention center 9 years ago. it was damned noisy. painful even. so how does low performance equate to noisy?

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

FINALLY, FINALLY, you hit on something valid. Yes, IF the 2-liter engine weighs less, it could be said to have higher performance. Weight of the engine has a direct impact on performance of the vehicle it is put in. Displacement doesn't. Volume does, but the relationship isn't nearly as simple as with weight. Reliability and noise are issues separate from performance -- those high perfomance engines in race cars are extremely noisy and very unreliable, for example.

Re: What companies do you like?
 

Now take the exhaust systems off of all engines. Now apply different engines to the same open exhaust technologies. Notice which engines make less noise AND have higher performance per liter. Less exhaust noise indicates a higher performance engine.

That even applies on the race courses. They are all loud. But notice which engines have the higher performance. They are the loud engine that makes less noise. Again, noise is a simple benchmark to measure engine performance.

In Indy: which engines are more powerful? Hondas and Mercedes whose engines make less noise. Honda went through some painful development with cast iron engines to learn how to make an Indy engine more powerful - less noise. Once they had used noise to identify energy problems, then they built the same engine in aluminum - and dominated races. Their lower noise engines were estimated to output at least 50 more horsepower.

Isolate exhaust noise so that all other sources of engine noise can be only heard. Which engine makes more noise? One machined to inferior tolerances. The one even with fan belt pulleys so poorly aligned that the engine also eats fan belts in less than 100,000 miles. (BTW it is only just recently that even GM cars would get more than 40,000 on belts whereas Hondas and Toyotas did it routinely in the 1970s). Again, more noise indicates a lower technology engine.

Who makes what engines? Well if GM wanted you to know, then they would put both Hp and liters on the new car sticker. Instead you must go to April Consumer Reports. Once they all provided that information. But since GM is a classic example of what all patriotic Americans should dislike ... well the next post also proves Horsepower per liter indicates more than just engine performance.


[Edited by tw on 05-11-2001 at 01:56 PM]

Defining a company you dislike
 

General Motors chased Ralph Nader with private detectives and hookers AND admitted same in an apology before the US Congress because GM has a history of stifling innovation - as Nader demonstrated in "Unsafe at Any Speed". GM chose to lower all engine performance and decrease gasoline mileage by about 1/2 rather than make cars that polluted less. They continued this throughout the early 1970s by, for example, getting a myopic public to believe all those hoses under the hood were anti-pollution components and blaming government for its lowered performance engines.

IOW GM routinely stifled innovation which only lowered the American standard of living, decreased wealth, and destroyed jobs while demanding anti-Free Market concepts such as tarriffs and import restrictions. GM possessed technologies to dominate the world markets on every continent. But instead GM used MBA school philosophies to downsize and to blame everyone else - the Europeans, Japan, government regulation, the unions, tax structure, the American education system. Even Hp per liter demonstrates this trend.

From Popular Science of Mar 1990 page 82:
""General Motors, which demonstrated the benefits of variable valve timing 15 years ago [1975], has yet to commit a system to production ... "We were getting about 50 Horsepower per liter of displacement with pushrods," says Rgoer Heimbuch, executive engineer for power train systems at GM. "Then 60 Horsepower per liter with overhead cams, seventy to seventy-five Hp per liter with four valve per cylinder, and 85 to 90 Hp per liter with tuned port induction. Then you add variable valve timing, and you can push to 100 horsepower per liter or so." He adds that the payoff is being able to make the engine, transmission, and structure smaller to improve the car's efficiency.""


1) GM had technology in 1970 so that 4 cylinder engines could match the horsepower of GM's 1960 technology V-8s. Why did they not use the technology to dominate world markets? It was a time period when all R&D was stifled by MBA cost control mentalities. The last GM corporate engineers - Estes, Cole, and DeLorean - were gone. With only MBAs management, GM made inferior products AND then blamed everyone else. What was Ken Starr's job before he was hired to chase Clinton's penis? He removed all documentation from GM engineers files so that GM could claim they knew nothing about Chevy Malibu passengers who burned to death - in 1990. That is the "Mark of Excellence"? GM is a classic example of companies you strongly dislike as indicated by the stifled higher performance technolgoy.

2) Obviously the executive engineer for power-train system must not know engineering since Russotto tells us, "Horsepower per liter doesn't measure anything particularly interesting in terms of performance." This engineer also says higher HP/l results in an "engine, transmission, and structure smaller to improve the car's efficiency" whereas Russotto tells us this this higher performance does not signficantly reduce engine size.

I saved this damning quote since I was interested in seeing how far Russotto would take his claims in contrast to so much contrary information. Hp per liter does measure performance. Even engine designers, directly quoted here, say so.

3) GM chased Nader with hookers, stifled pollution control technologies, decrease gas mileage so grossly that America was easy victims to both gas shortages, and made products so inferior as to not be exportable. In short, GM did everything it could to enrich their top management while destroying American jobs and exportable products. Horsepower per liter is just another numerical example of why GM cars are not exportable, why they cost more to build, why they are less reliable, and why this is a company that every reader should strongly dislike. Horsepower per liter not only quantifies performance, but it also suggest which companies make the most anti-American and anti-humanity products.

Re: Re: What companies do you like?
 

Nope, it ain't that simple. Removing the exhaust system changes the way the engine works. Not just the amount of restriction (which leads to backpressure), but the geometry of the system. Taking it off leads to a wholly invalid measurement. Not to mention a very loud car.

Catharsis
 

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are the opinions of Sycamore and may not necessarily represent the situation as a whole.

But now that I am officially off their payroll...I AM FREE FROM CVS!!! WHOOHOO!!!

I worked for CVS from early December until this past Friday. To be honest, when I took the job, I was not overly thrilled about going back into retail. But I was willing to give it a good shot and try my best.

But in a nutshell...I feel that CVS is trying to extract an unreasonable amount of work from its managers. Furthermore, some folks in the marketing department came up with the Extracare Card, similar to the SuperFresh or ShopRite card. And they came up with a great way to get people to sign up for it--taking away sale prices unless you have the card.

JCPenney has had problems with Eckerd. Rite Aid has been going through its own issues. Drug Emporium has also floundered. Which leaves two big chains...at least in this area: CVS and Walgreens. Walgreens is king in the midwest, while CVS has a hold on the East Coast. CVS has started pushing out west, while Walgreens has started popping up here and in Baltimore. However, if CVS continues to treat its employees the way it does, the quality of service will fall as they won't be able to attract quality employees.

I only wish there was a Walgreens closer to me other than Frankford Terminal. And while I like the selection at most CVS stores, it's hard to get help when there are no other people in the store other than one cashier and a manager...and you have 95 million things that are supposed to be done.

There...now I feel better. :-)

[Edited by sycamore on 06-10-2001 at 01:32 AM]

Re: Catharsis
 

I stopped shopping at Giant precisely because they instituted the Giant Supercard. Now I use Genaurdis, which unfortunately is likely to introduce such a card because Safeway has one. Giant was much cheaper, but when they brought in the card they jacked up all the prices to Genaurdis levels and let the card get you a discount partway back to the older prices.

I'm assuming this is the Giant here in Pennsylvania, and not Super G, which is known as Giant in the Washington/Baltimore market, right?

Safeway's prices were a tad high when I shopped at their stores in DC and MD. The card was really just an excuse. Super Fresh seems to be the same way, as I tend to find the best prices at Acme. Shop-Rite is actually not bad, and the card makes prices even lower.

I'm not sure where CVS is headed with the ExtraCare Card. To me, it's just another damned card or keychain tag. I'm not against marketing practices, but are we safe from the clutches of research anymore?

(On a side note, one thing I DO like about the Super Fresh at Franklin Mills is the self-checkout lane. Very cool.)

Yes, though they are owned by the same (Dutch, IIRC) mega-conglomerate now. Thus Super G also has a card. Super G was always a premium store, though, on par with Genaurdis or Safeway.

[quote]Originally posted by russotto

Quote:

Yes, though they are owned by the same (Dutch, IIRC) mega-conglomerate now. Thus Super G also has a card. Super G was always a premium store, though, on par with Genaurdis or Safeway.

Really? I thought Super G was owned by a Quebec company. I haven't been in Washington or Baltimore since last September, but at the time I left, Giant there was not yet using a card.

Although, if Genuardi's starts using the Safeway card, I could always put that back to use. ;-)

I only happened to look this post up b/c I was just looking back at what I was posting at this time last year.

But how prophetic. I DO use my Safeway Club card when I shop at Genuardi's now. Any time I use it, the checkers get all wide-eyed and shit..."Oh wow! So that's a Safeway Club card!" What the hell? It's just a damned card. :)

Heh -- what is all this about quieter engines being higher performance??? Too funny...

Amazing how many just know without first learning numbers. Higher performance engines are the quieter ones. This demonstrated in places such as Indy and Formula One racing.

In many preceeding posts in this thread and in previous threads, some here just absolutely denied that Horsepower per Liter (HP/liter) was a relevant engineering concept. Yes, many just know without first learning facts. This from the Cover Story for this year's Philadelphia Auto Show (www.phillyautoshow.com) entitled "A Big Story on the Show Floor" When I started driving, most everyone drove 300 cu inch or larger engines. These engines produced about 140 to 180 horsepower. Today we call that 5.0 or 5.7 liters. Today there is little reason for any passenger vehicle to have more than 3.0 liters. Just another reason why performance - Horsepower per liter - is an important number to those who design - where the real beauty of a car resides.

There are bean counters - those trained in communist concepts - who stifle. Then there are patriots - the product people - those who promote innovation. Bean counters will look at shiny paint to see a pretty car. Product people will look at the numbers and what is inside to really appreciate what is beautiful - and what makes America great: innovation.

It took you four years to come up with that?

;)