Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times
 

The Wall Street Journal writes an article about GM. It's only common knowledge. GM takes revenge when they don't like what a reporter writes. From the Wall Street Journal of 8 April 2005 As a result, WSJ reporters such as Maryann Keller ("Rude Awakening") were reporting more honestly about GMs product problems.

Honesty is not GM. Example: new Pontiac G6 that GM promoted by giving away on Oprah. Lutz inherited this car and another pathetic product - Buick Lacrosse - when he arrived. Other pathetic designs include the Saturn L series that was forced upon Saturn by corporate bean counters. These are products of a #1 problem in GM - Rick Wagoner. But then let's do the numbers - which GM fears to put on their window stickers. 200 horsepower from a 3.5 liter V-6 is a paltry and low performance 57 horse power per liter. Well at least that is an improvement over their 52 HP per liter cars of the last ten years. 70 HP/liter was standard performance more than 10 years ago. A technology that GM was ready to put into all vehicles in 1975 - more than 25 years ago - if car guys (not bean counters) were permitted to design.

Why put the 70 Hp/liter in cars when so many Americans are so anti-American as to buy cars that must have two extra pistons (and less gas mileage). Those higher prices? Blame the unions.

Two years ago, (July 2003?), the New York Times wrote a scathing review of another pathetic GM product - the Pontiac Grand Prix. Maybe because Pontiac was replacing this product with the G6, then it was safe for the NY Times to report facts. The Grand Prix was called pathetic. Rick Wagoner could not be blamed for that so called 'Wide Track' car. BTW wide track means it is the same width as identical models sold in Buick and Chevy. Wide track is an expression for those who like to be lied to. Pontiacs are only wider in their exaggeration.

Rick Wagoner was head of GMs North American operation when, in February 2000, he was in competition with the European head of operations to succeed Jack Smith. North American operations were losing money while the European operations (Vauxhall and Opel) were providing GM with up to $1billion in profits annually. And so GM promoted the man whose operations lost money every year (North America) rather than promote a man who provided profitable products (Europe). Now that Wagoner is top boss, both operations are losing money heavily. No wonder GM management is blaming everyone except themselves. GM bonds somehow managed to stay out of junk status this week. GM wants the press to spin facts for them. Don't tell the truth about how bad GM products really are - especially their low performance, higher polluting, and lower gas mileage engines. Ignore that $100 million provided by the government in 1993 to develop hybrid products ... that GM still does not sell more than 10 years later. Never attack GM management. They are even more important than the product line. The emperor has no cloths. Fix the problem. Muzzle the press.

This month is the Consumer Reports April car issue. Consumer Reports (not to be confused with Consumers Digest) has a long history of being honest. Why? GM cannot use its advertising budget to take revenge. One famous CR article was entitled "Oldsmobile Achieva is an under achiever". An understatement. But CR can be honest. GM is depicting the LA Times to threaten the news media - because GM products are that bad due to Rick Wagoner.

Dan Neil's LA Times article is not that negative. But it identifies a problem in GM - Rick Wagoner. Not permitted. Responsible technical publications from the IEEE to Scientific American noted that hydrogen as a fuel is not realistic. Better still - it was a lie once you did simple engineering numbers. Not enough energy in a hydrogen fuel. Too much energy lost to store and distribute it.

Hybrids were long known by the technically informed as a viable solution. But GMs top management had to understand simple numbers for BTUs in fuel, pounds per square inch, leakage rates, thermodynamic concepts, ... All things known to an executive who can provide a strategic objective - a product oriented thinker. Ask current GM management to provide the strategic objective? Not possible when bean counters design the products. Currently GM has pathetic products as one should expect from a bean counter - who could not even run a profitable North American operation.

BTW what were Rick Wagoner's previous jobs? Finance.

Signs in GM a decade ago spelled the word "employe". Why? This is how Roger Smith spelled the word in his memos. Therefore all signs in all GM plants were changed to spell the word as Smith insisted. Dan Quayle? Anyone remember how to spell "potatoe"? Immediately after Roger Smith left GM, all signs were immediately changed to spell it correctly: "employee". That is GM. The boss - not the product - is important. A principle promoted by business school management. A problem so deeply embedded in GM's bad management that Rick Wagoner decided to take personal control of jobs by both Cowger and Lutz. A management so deeply entrenched that the head of one few profitable GM operations in China quit when a new boss moved to Shanghai to better 'oversee' operations there.

Rick Wagoner's history was losses when he was boss of GM's North American operations. How do GM managers get their jobs? Clearly not on designing better products or reporting profits. Get Americans to foolishly buy GM products and lies. Better to get news services to spin half truths - so a naive 23% will continue to buy classically anti-American GM products.

They vote to save Rick Wagoner's job. They buy low performance, gas guzzling, pathetic vehicles that cannot be exported and still don't have technology that GM was ready to market in 1975 - 25+ years ago. Technology now found in all patriotic products since 1992. And that was the standard technology before hybrids. Let’s see. No 70 Horsepower per liter engine in the Pontiac G6 or Buick Lacrosse. No hybrids in any models. Who would be so foolish as to buy products from this company?

I'm buying those two extra cylinders to get more liters to get more horsepower...duh.
Don't forget there's a price for that horsepower, the more horsepower the shorter the life span for the same engine.

Blame the unions? For the high prices of cars? Think again pal, the union labor accounts for 12 to 15% of the cost of that car. :eyebrow:

As far as I can tell, hybrids get about the sort of gas mileage you'd expect for a car with the OTHER technological improvements they contain, with an equivalently-sized gasoline engine. That is, they get better mileage because they've got less power.

Horsepower per liter is a somewhat interesting figure, but it means nothing in and of itself, and your religious devotion to it is silly. If HP/L was so important, everyone would be using Wankel engines.

Religions? I have no respect for Spanish Inquisitions.

In the meantime who do I believe - Roger Heimbuch, executive engineer for power train systems at GM? Or Russotto. Who do I believe? Jack Obermeyer, a chief engineer for Magnavox who increased horsepower 15 to 20 percent (including less pollution and increased gas mileage)? Or Russotto? Which one has better credibility. Which one in the group never even provides numbers? Russotto.

Which should I believe. The improved gas mileage, longer engine reliability, and wider operating range in the cars with a 70 Hp/liter engine? Or should I believe Russotto who provides no such examples.

Damning question. Once Porsche was the dream car because it had the 70 Hp per liter engine. Then the superior technology became standard in cars with longer life expectancy such as Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes. What cars fail so often that they are also the most stolen? Those low performance GM products.

Ahhh but Horsepowe per liter tells us nothing even though it explains why a GM car (comparitively equipped) costs more to build than than a Mercedes Benz. The GM car must add two extra pistons and all that other machined parts only to output equal horsepower (with less gas mileage, less responsible engine, and higher failure rates that occur with lower performance engines).

Ahhh, but Russotto just knows HP/liter tells us nothing. No reason to tell us why he knows. It is just better that he knows and we do not (a subtle way of saying, "Prove it").

Religion? I have no respect for Spanish Inquisitions. Instead I cite an enemy of religion - the numbers.

In the meantime who do I believe - Roger Heimbuch, executive engineer for power train systems at GM? Or Russotto. Who do I believe? Jack Obermeyer, a chief engineer for Magnavox who increased horsepower 15 to 20 percent (including less pollution and increased gas mileage)? Or Russotto? Which one has better credibility. Which one in the group never even provides numbers? Russotto.

Which should I believe. The improved gas mileage, longer engine reliability, and wider operating range in the cars with a 70 Hp/liter engine? Or should I believe Russotto who provides no such examples.

Damning question. Once Porsche, with its standard 70 Hp/liter engine, was a benchmark dream car. Then the superior technology (which also means longer life expectancy) appeared in standard vehicles such as Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes. What cars fail so often that they are also most stolen? Those with low performance and therefore high failure engines: GM products. I guess it is just an accident that GM is again on the verge of bankruptcy.

Horsepower per liter tells us nothing - even though it explains why a GM car (comparatively equipped) costs more to build than a Mercedes Benz? The GM car must add two extra pistons, extra machined parts, and a bigger body only to output equal horsepower (with less gas mileage, less responsible engine, and higher failure rates that occur with lower performance engines). Horsepower per liter only accidentally identifies which cars are inferior?

Russotto just knows HP/liter tells us nothing. No reason to tell us why he knows. It is just better that he knows and we do not (a subtle way of saying, "Prove it").

Which cars on the race track (real racing is about innovation) break down less often (and win more races)? Those with the high performance engines. Higher performance means the parts are not vibrating themselves into destruction. Higher performance means more energy applied to the wheel and less energy applied to the destruction of engine and drive train.

One advantage of 70 Hp per liter engines was longer life compared to 1975 lower performance 35 HP per liter V8s. Which cars lasted longer? The Chevy type car (of 1975 vintage) sold under a Mercedes nameplate with a higher performance engine (because it was machined better) or the 1975 Chevy?

"Bigger engines last longer" is a myth promoted by motor heads who cum over V-8s rather than first learn basic engine technology. The same people who called those Hondas and Toyotas junk. In reality, any engine designed and machined better is the one that lasts longer - no matter how many pistons are inside. That means higher Hp/liter.

BTW, which long haul (diesel) trucks have engines that last longer? Trucks with the higher performance engines are the more reliable. Larger engines that only get the same horsepower tend to fail more often.

In the meantime, Louis Hughes is the GM executive who made GM's European and even GM's Chinese operations profitable. When Wagoner, a finance guy who ran unprofitable operations instead got promoted, then Hughes left to become head of (I believe it was) Lockheed Martin. Promote the guy you see more often rather than the guy who makes things work. And so GM market share plummets along with their stagnant technology.

The one reason cited by Roger Smith (of the movie Roger and Me) for buying Hughes Spacecraft was so that GM cars could feature 'heads up displays'. Twenty plus years later - where is it? Well Roger Smith, like so many GM executives, did not know how to drive. Head up displays? I finally saw my first 'heads up display': on a Toyota Prius. A hybrid.

Where is Hughes Spacecraft? GM spun off Direct TV, On-Star, and Delco (all contain Hughes Spacecraft divisions) to cover GMs 1990s losses. I wonder if Toyota gets that 'heads up display' from a former Hughes Spacecraft operation.

:confused:

Why do televisions need more horsepower?

You’re stuttering, TW. You read this in an article (Economist?), understood the concept and their sources but trying to condense it into a short post (after being beaten up for making long ones so often) the cites/ quotes don't fully support the premise.

OK, what in hell is a “High Performance” engine?
Are you saying the more horsepower per cubic inch/liter the longer it will last? That’s simply not true. The longevity of the engine depends on how that HP was achieved. Displacement is a surefire way, in two engines of the same technology. So is nitros oxide injection but neither will help longevity.
You’re right about vibration being the enemy of engines. As a matter of fact it’s engine enemy #1. Enemy #2 is heat(excessive). Both these culprits interfere with lubrication but that’s the method, not the cause, of failure.

Comparing a 1975 GM V-8 to the Mercedes of that vintage, yes, the Merc will probably last longer. And yes it was machined to closer tolerances but it also cost 3 times as much.
That highly touted Honda or Toyota engine was pulling much less weight. They would both fail much sooner than a big V-8, trying to lug a big GM car around.
Engines are most efficient when they’re working their hardest but that hurts longevity.
Remember HP and efficiency don’t mean torque. That’s the value of a diesel, the tremendous torque it produces at low RPM. Those 80,000 lb over the road rigs are turning about 2,000 rpm which helps longevity significantly but they also use transmission/differentials you have to shift 26 times. :mg:

Heads up displays were ONE of the reasons for buying Hughes but it makes a good sound bite for the TV news or quick fact for the automotive press.
The primary reason is they could see electronics was the future of automobiles and experience, capacity, knowledge are easier and cheaper to come by, when you buy a company that has it rather than creating a division from scratch.
They hadn’t planned to spin off On-star, it was a financial necessity.
BTW, GM has heads up in the high end models...it ain’t cheap and of questionable in normal driving.

Bottom line...GM has gone to hell in a handbasket. The MBAs haven't a clue about the car culture so they've made bad moves consistantly. Some of their high end products have finally turned around but the bulk of the products and the Corporation itself are deep, deep in doo doo.

The stupidest part of the whole engineering issue is that the federal goverment wants to slam down Californias efforts at tougher emission standards. The Feds, those corporate ass-kissing former and future lobbyist wannabes, are claiming that although California could write a tougher clean air law, when it comes to auto emissions the only way to improve auto emissions is by improving mileage, which is the sole province of the federal government.

This is of course pure horse manure, since a catalytic converter does not improve mileage.

So here is our "state's rights" conservative Congress using a loophole to prevent a state from trying to resolve a clean air issue on it's own.

bastards.

Kahnwe, Dewey, Fucem & Howe
Attorneys at Law
Detroit, Michigan

Mr. TW Cellar
Onthenet, PA

Dear Sir,
It has come to our attention you’ve been casting aspersions on the General Motors Executives.
Your actions have caused these fine members of the Grosse Point Country Club embarrassment and ridicule by their peers, in the clubhouse.
Your public ridicule has subsequently forced them to increase compensation to their mistresses in lieu of their ability to perform.
Their wives have increased European shopping junkets, their children have been working for Democratic candidates, their dogs have growled at them and their paperboy has been aiming for the roof.

Tsk tsk, Sir. As legal representatives and golfing partners of the aforesaid executives, we demand you cease and desist your criticism, stifle your passion and button your lip.
Should you ignore our demands, we will have no choice but to turn this matter over to the General Motors Corp, Homeland Security Division, Black Helicopter Branch, Field Testing Group.
We will also take all necessary steps to tell on you.

Respectfully Yours
Shirley Fucem

And the creativity prize goes to.....

http://www.icommag.com/january-2005/...mith-prize.gif

xoxoBruce!!!

Two engines using same technology. Obviously nitrous references were made only to confuse the issue. Obvious when industry standard numbers for fuel injected engines were different from turbo which were different from supercharged which are different from nitrous. Clearly those are all different technology engines. Lower performance GM engine (of same technology) is larger because it creates less horsepower for many reasons including excessive vibration, poorly designed exhaust systems, etc. GM engine wears out faster. Obviously. The GM engine has a lower HP/liter number AND costs more to build than the Mercedes.

Don't let those dealer prices fool you. The Mercedes comparatively equipped sell for same or less than the GM product throughout the world. At the same price, Mercedes earns a profit. GM sells many cars at losses which is why GM is so anxious to protect their SUVs with a $5000 profit margin.

Horsepower per liter number accurately identifies both crappy and superior engines. Even an advanced auto engine development engineer from Magnavox cited the number. Hondas and Toyotas move same weight car with smaller engines that also last longer. Why? Same technology engine has a higher HP/liter number due to superior design, less vibration, smarter exhaust system, better fuel combustion (meaning less pollution), etc.

BTW, what does the catalytic converter do? Burns gasoline the engine did not (and a few other functions). How to decrease pollution? Increase gas mileage as was even proven by Japanese cars in the 1970s and 1980s. Burn gasoline in the engine and not in a catalytic converter. Why does Honda ,et al have those ultra low emmission vehicles? They properly burn gasoline in the engine and therefore get higher gasoline mileage to boot.

Properly noted by xoxoxoBruce is that some GM products have improved. How do you know? Those are the few GM products that finally got a 70 Hp/liter engine. Most noteworthy is the performance improvement in cars that are (unfortunately) styled like Bizarro Superman's face - Cadillac.

A worse case problem that virtually everyone says is a GM problem. They have 18 models in 8 divisions. They have three different cars of the same size and market that don't even share any component parts. VW markets numerous nameplates from only three cars. Names such as TT , Pasat, and VW Bug are the same vehicle with modified metal curves.

These recent posts are simply updated details on what was posted many years previously. GM did not fix their problems. Rick Wagoner is no different from previous GM leaders who (for example) short the pension fund contributions to invent profits. Then blame the pension fund for their financial problems years later. Financial problems today were obvious many years previously in the background of top GM management and the resulting pathetic products. What does GM do? Blame the LA Times and seek revenge. Yea. That will fix everything. Kill the messenger.

First of all Nitros Oxide (laughing gas the dentist uses) is a legitimate way to increase hp and NOT obviously made only to confuse the issue. 600/700 cubic inch engines routinely produce 3,000 hp but they are rebuilt after a couple of minutes running. Lot’s of hp/ci but not longevity, which is the point. HOW the increase in hp/displacement is achieved dictates any increase in longevity. Where on earth did you get that from? :headshake If your comparing the Mercedes to GMs sold in Calcutta, but not in NY. The Catalytic Converter was invented to remove the NOx (nitrogen oxides) that come from higher combustion temps. The higher temps are required to make the engine operate more efficiently. Engine coolant temps that used to be 160 to 180 degrees F are now over 200 to keep the combustion chambers and incoming charge passages hot.

Now they have 3-way Cats that will act like a furnace to burn some of the carbon monoxide and any hydrocarbons (fuel or oil) that get by the engine. BUT their primary function is still removing the N from the NOx resulting in O2(oxygen) and N2(nitrogen).

One reason Hybrids pollute less is that huge battery pack has the power to heat the Cat, getting it working quickly.

All these are just technical points. The fact remains GM's management has sucked for some time and still does. The only reason they've survived this long is the momentum and clout of such a behemoth with a better than 50% market share takes a long time to run down.

Again, nitrous only confuses the issue. Do we all run nitrous in our cars? Of course not. We are discussing a technology called fuel injection using standard 87 Octane gasoline. Which versions of these engines last longer? Those with a higher HP/liter number. Again you are looking at retail price and assuming that retail price is reflected in manufacturing costs. When selling a Mercedes in the US, add upwards of $20,000 profit because the equivalent GM car (of inferior quality) must sell at that price to break even or earn a small profit.

About ten years ago, profit margins for GM products averaged - $125 per vehicle. $125 for a less than $20000 vehicle. Ford and Chrysler were both earning about $1000 per vehicle. GM automobiles were sold at a loss which is why GM was about 2 hours away from bankruptcy sometime on or after 1990. One of the biggest losers was the Chevy Caprice. It has been long understood that GMs costs are some of the world's highest - higher than Daimler Benz. (Maybe Fiat had higher costs?)

Look at labor. How many man-hours to make every part and assemble the vehicle? 1000 man-hours? No way. Not even in the ballpark. When GM was making every part from scratch into a completed car: 120 man-hours. However most of GMs competitors were doing same in less than 90 man-hours. When GM was bragging they got their manufacturing labor down to (I forget the exact number) 70 man-hours, well, the industry was doing a car in only 40 man-hours. It is estimated that some Toyota facilities are doing cars in less than 30 man-hours. Again, that is everything from putting threads on the screws to assembling the final product.

For those who listen to silly propaganda about labor costs: first do the numbers. A man earning about $30,000 per year on the assembly line takes 120 man-hours to manufacture one vehicle. Labor costs were about $2500 per vehicle. At $2500 per vehicle, a car company could not be profitable even in the late 1980s. At $1200 labor per vehicle, still GMs costs are some of the highest in the world. Labor has always been that little in the price of a new car. But at $2500 per vehicle, you can understand why GM tried to sell Chevy Cavaliers at $12000 per car. Eventually GM had to lower the base price to under $10000 per car because better designed imports took less man-hours to build.

Was Japanese labor cheaper? More myths. Japanese auto industry labor has traditionally been more expensive per hour than America. Typically 10% higher paid.

GMs problems are directly traceable to bad designs that cost more to build and that have worse reliability problems. And yes, the Daimler Benz products have long cost less to build than comparatively equipped GM models. It is why Mercedes are even found in ghettos such as the Gaza Strip. The dirty little joke played on naive Americans who "Buy American". They say, "Keep making crap that cannot even be exported". They still buy GM products and therefore say it is good to make crap. Patriots believe in the free market and buy the best - which is not an American GM product. Completely wrong. Newer design catalytic converters also address the NOx problems. But the original early 1970s converters only did one thing - burn the hydrocarbons in the exhaust. In fact, some carburetors were so badly constructed that early catalytic converters would set fire to the grass. Too much gasoline dumped into the catalytic converter cause too much heat and grass fires.

To do the same thing (mostly found in low performance American engines) was an air pump. Pump more air into the exhaust to burn the gasoline the engine did not. Nonsense. Innovators instead burn hydrocarbons in the engine - the higher performance 70 HP/liter engine.

This nonsense of about 'burning gas in the exhaust pipe' was made most glaringly obvious when DeLorean rescued Vega from MBA corporate management. Corporate executives wanted GM's Rochester carburetor in Vegas. DeLorean (a product oriented thinker) protected the Holley 5210C (licensed by Weber) that caused more fuel to be burned inside the engine. DeLorean summarizes the story quite bluntly in his book "On a Clear Day, You Can See GM". Rochester carbs were designed by bean counters. Holley innovated - licensed and tuned the world's best carburetor to be used on small engines. When DeLorean left GM in 1977, then the Holley Carb was immediately replaced in 1978 Vegas. But because the carb was so crappy, GM then had to install an air pump - to burn gasoline in the exhaust because gasoline was not fully burned in the engine.

The air pump and catalytic converter were to burn gasoline in the exhaust pipe when engine was lower performance and poor gas mileage; therefore polluted more.

Again, the catalytic converter has been improved since then to also process NOx and CO emissions. But its original and primary purpose is to burn hydrocarbons - as was its purpose in the 1930s when first installed at GM painting facilities by Airco.

What first addressed the NOx problem? EGR valve. Originally developed as part of the Chrysler CAP system in the 1960s. Its purpose: to lower combustion temperatures and reduce NOx. Yes, thermodynamic principles says a high temperature engine should be thermodynamically more efficient. But high NOx production meant more energy was lost manufacturing NOx - a pollutant. High School Chemistry. Break apart NOx into nitrogen and oxygen. Get no pollution and get more energy. An engine that outputs high NOx (pollutants) is using gasoline energy to instead make an air pollutant. To get better gas mileage and reduce pollution (less NOx), all cars now have the EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) valve.

Americans were leading the world with 'less polluting' technologies in the 1960s. However the chief engineer for Chrysler's CAP program was (by 1970) banned from SAE meeting because top bean counter executives did not want those lower polluting technologies known. When top executive testified before the Senate (about 1969) that the 1975 standards could not be met, Chrysler’s CAP program was already testing engines in CA that met 1974 standards. Top auto executives don't like to be exposed by Senators as liars.

Today, many still believe those myths of bean counter auto executives. They claim more pollution control means less gasoline mileage. As demonstrated by the science in that above history, those who make a higher mileage engine also reduce pollution.

When the US auto industry in the late 1970s virtually did everything they could to deny pollution reduction, then patriots appeared in places like Bosch. Bosch developed the oxygen sensor now found in all cars. What does it do? Reduced pollution and increases gasoline mileage by reporting oxygen levels in the exhaust. A device that maximizes gas mileage also reduces pollution. But this has always been the secret to superior products that also have higher Hp/liter. Innovation. It means the top management must be car guys; not bean counters.

Nonsense. You don't need a hybrid battery to heat the catalytic converter. Any energy source (such as the alternator) can do that just fine. Hybrids pollute less and obtain better mileage because they adapt better to changing loads. To solve this 'load' problem, GMs solution was bigger engines. Hybrids do as diesel electric locomotives were doing in the 1930s. The concept was that well understood. Adapt better to changing load conditions and the engine can be smaller. A one liter Hybrid is now doing what a 2.2 liter (or in GM's case, a 3.0 liter) conventional engine does. And this is expected only to get better since the current hybrids are currently so crude.

Why are GMs costs so high? They stifled a 1972 technology even 25 years later - the 70 Hp/liter engine. That technology has since been replaced by Hybrids. Government gave GM (no strings attached) $100 million to develop a hybrid. But GM management is so anti-American, anti-innovation, and anti-humanity as to still not have a hybrid ready for production. $100 million dollars - no strings attached - and they still cannot innovate? Of course not. Look at where GM top executives come from. Finance Department. They even promoted the bean counter who operation was losing money every year - Rick Wagoner - over the engineer whose operation was delivering profits every year - Louis Hughes. A company so much its own enemy that GM cannot even see the difference between a good and bad executive? That has been GMs problems ever since the accountants took the company away from car guys about 1968 and after.

BTW, every executive I personally know in GM is either a lawyer or an MBA school graduate.

You were talking about 70's and 80's during which fuel injection was not universal by a long shot. Obviously you're trying to confuse the issue by using different technologies, apples and oranges, calling them the same, and comparing outputs of horsepower as king. Meanwhile completely ignoring the effect of torque output and the type of technology on longevity.
Shame on you for misleading these good people.
It doesn't matter what they make in the profit column at Mercedes, when they charge 3 times as much as a Chevy people can't afford them. Duh. Use your head. People aren't shopping technology they're shopping price.
Horseshit, GM has never made all it's content. They've always bought parts and fasteners from outside venders. Not as much as today but always a significant percentage. The only hours you can add up is assembly of major components and final assembly of the vehicle. Oh, and vehicle assemblers make more than $30k....a lot more.. But when you reduce the combustion temp the other two pollutants go up. BTW- the automakers were forbidden by federal law to work together on emission controls. Ahem. Ahem. I'm sure every executive you personally know at GM would make me question your definition of exectutive. :eyebrow:

Thank you for admitting technology found even in German WWII fighter planes could have been in production in 1975 GM cars. So why was technology stifled until fuel injection (and other innovations) appeared in 1992 in competition products? Some are so in denial as to now try to obfuscate this discussion. They would fill the air with nitrogen oxide pollution - and even claim that catalytic converters were for NOx reduction. Even the original catalytic converter was only for the burning of hydrocarbons - because the engine did not. Nonsense. No. Outright lie. Someone has been listening too much to GM propaganda rather than learning reality. If GM propaganda was so accurate, then why is GM losing so much money – and now even attacking the LA Times for only publishing the obvious facts?

Daimler products cost less to manufacture than a comparable GM car - in part because so many Americans keep buying those inferior GM products. So many Americans so hate America as to not let GM engineers use technologies both developed and stifled in America. They buy the crap. That vote says “Keep making crap”.

Chrysler was the perfect takeover for Mercedes. They could still sell the Benz with large profit markups, and then sell the same car in much greater numbers as a Chrysler. Massive profits from the rich and large profits from the masses by selling the same platform. The Chrysler 300 is but one example of a Mercedes sold under the Chrysler name. Expect more Mercedes sold at Chevy prices under a different brand name because Daimler products cost less to build than pathetic and boring GM products. And BTW, even the BBC tonight discusses those boring GM products. BBC specifically used the word “boring”.

In the meantime, what do some Americans do? They continue to buy the crap GM products. A patriot believes in the free market - buy the best. But some Americans only make the American economy worse. They pay more for the crappy GM product. So crappy that it cannot even be exported.

Correctly noted is that GM has never made all its content. Therefore the average salary of a GM production worker (GM employee and their suppliers) was somewhere around $30K. Japanese labor cost more. And still the Japanese car costs less to build. Why? Numbers were provided previously. A superior product takes less man-hours. Just another reason why a GM car - using less expensive labor - costs more to build than a comparatively equipped Mercedes.

What does GM management blame? The government, the tax structure, their pension funds (which GM management under funded to mask losses on their inferior products), the education system, you, me, the labor unions ... everyone except the enemies of America - GM top management. Especially Rick Wagoner who was losing money for GM’s North American operation when he was promoted to CEO.

Numbers posted were correct. Assembly line workers did get paid more. But when the labor numbers all averaged out, the GM worker averaging $30,000 per year (about $20 an hour) got paid less than his Japanese competition. Still the GM product cost more to build. Who did management blame? Blame the overpaid unions (and not the grossly overpaid top executives who did not even know how to drive).

BTW automakers were not forbidden to sell their emission technologies to other companies - even their competition. Why is the EGR valve developed in Chrysler found in all other cars? Clearly this must violate some federal law... not. But then I keep knocking down myth after myth. The bottom line is that a GM product costs more to build than a Mercedes and it still an inferior product. So inferior because GM management still will not put the 70 Hp/liter engine in all cars. You can tell which GM cars have the lowest performance engines. They are the ones that make the most noise - and are therefore wearing out faster.

Watch GM run to the government for protection. Maybe ask for another $100 million to develop a hybrid engine? No. A $100 million to develop a hydrogen fuel vehicle - which even fundamental science says is not feasible. But then when did Congress look at facts when bribery of Congress is legal? We all get rich - in GM and the Congress. People protected by public fools whose entire decision is based only on "Buy American" - screw the numbers.

Fuck it. The pig just doesn't want to learn to sing. :p

xoxoxoBruce - inventing numbers such as a Mercedes costs three times as much to manufacturer does not make your posts credible. Provided are numbers such as labor costs. You can deny those numbers all you want. But without better numbers, again, you are just nay saying. Where are your facts? I only read from you speculation. Where are your numbers. I provided many numbers direct from industry professionals. The most damning being Hp/liter and man-hours of labor to manufacturer each vehicle. Where do you provide a better industry benchmark? If you post as if Saddam's aluminum tubes are for WMDs, then you will only be confronted with reality you don't want to hear. Industry numbers would go a long way to making your point.

Meantime, I found another example of what has happened to GM since car guys stopped designing the product around 1970. IOW I come to opinions by first learning these facts:

From the New York Times of 23 April 2005
Since more consumption means higher gasoline prices, where is the logic in GM's planns. Those who lived through this kind of downturn in the 1970s can also appreciate what GM, Chrysler, and Ford's solutions were back then. They simply kept building more large vehicles with low performance, low mileage engines. History tends to repeat itself in 30 year cycles when we don't learn those lessons.

I made a mistake.
 

In TW’s original post he made the assertion that GM’s management sucks. I agree with this assertion. However, he offered up as proof the magic 70 hp/liter as evidence of higher efficiency, better mileage and longevity which is utter bullshit.
Russotto offered an opinion which TW twisted until it was unrecognizable and belittled the poster as unworthy. You’ve seen it before.

Actually I made two mistakes. One was trying to respond to TW’s jumping around history and technology, and trying to answer his accusations of things I didn’t say, when I was too busy to devote that kind of attention to the thread.
The second, and more important mistake, again because of hurrying, was to reverse the chronological order of the catalytic converters. I apologize if I misled anyone. :o

More hp/liter doesn’t prove anything because there are so many ways to make hp. Better manufacturing tolerances, better balance for lower vibration (preferably by design and care rather than counter balance), better air flow in and out, more accurate spark and fuel delivery/timing, higher compression, variable valve timing, supercharging, turbo charging and NOS not to be confused withNOx.

I said And TW responded Carburated, pushrod Chevy is the same technology as an overhead cam, fuel injected Merc. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
Next 1992?? By '92 everything had injection for several years. Before Bosch invented the oxygen sensor enabling electronic fuel injection and electronic engine management, fuel injection was a nightmare. Prestigious, yes, but tremendously complex to manufacture and maintain. Easily clogged, impossible to keep in tune more than a few months at a time, and no advantage for street driving. That’s one reason the Mercedes engines cost 3 times as much as GM’s to buy.
I also said mercs cost 3 times what a Chevy does, in reply to TW’s, I guess “patriots’ are much richer than most of us if they can spend 3 times as much for a merc.
So then he says, You see how he’s twisted what I said from the cars cost the consumer 3 times as much to the manufacturing costs being 3 times as high? Man, your nose must be growing.
I also said, And he responded, This time "work together" becomes "sell". Liar, liar, pants on fire. :p
All the manufacturers had a deadline to come up with a system of controlling their pollutants. The Fed’s were afraid collusion would prevent independent research to come up with the best possible solution(s) so they made it illegal to work together or even to know what the other was doing. After they had met their targets they were free to use any method to meet their mandated levels.
Make up a myth and knock it down. Wonder if he knows anyone named Sancho Panza?

An engine cylinder has a set displacement so it needs a certain amount of fuel to maintain a ratio of 14.7 pounds of air for each pound of fuel. At times of low or no load it's wasting that required minimum fuel but if they give it less fuel the combustion temperature soars and the engine will melt down plus the NOx climbs with the temperature. The ERG valve replaces part of the oxygen rich air with oxygen poor exhaust gas so they can withhold part of the fuel and not go lean, causing the temperature and NOx to climb.
Unfortunately the ERG valve is a trouble spot because its controling exhaust flow which tends to clog the valve with deposits. But since GM didn't invent it, that's ok.

You know...I’m beginning to think Bush didn’t lie. :lol:

Well done deconstructing, B. Good information.

Listed are things required in the standard 70 Horsepower per liter engine. However, somehow xoxoxoBruce feels GM products still use carburetors?

Fuel injected engines come with and without specific features. Those (in the same fuel injected category) which include these features last longer, get better gas mileage, pollute less, and cost less to build. Why was carbureted engine technology replaced by fuel injected technology? Because the engine lasts longer, gets better gas mileage, pollutes less, and costs less to build. Or in GM's case, because it was all but required by the EPA.

Curiously, the same technolgy GM engine either compromises or forget to include standard features of current technology fuel injected products. As a result, their engines must have two extra pistons which means costs more to build, vibrates more, fails more often, burns more gas, etc.

Compare current GM technology to that of Daimler Benz. For example, the Chrysler 300 can be purchased with a 2.7 or 3.5 liter V-6. They output 70.4 and 71.4 Hp per liter. Why? Daimler uses world standard (post 1992) technology that GM could have sold in even 1975. (Chrysler is a Daimler Benz company).

Let see what GM sells. The base engine of the Buick Lacrosse (called Allure in Canada because LaCrosse had too sexy undertones for GM Canada) has a 3.8 liter V-6 outputting 52.6 Hp/liter. The Chevy Impala uses 3.4 l and 3.8 liter V-6s that do 52.9 and 52.6 Hp/liter. Spend more for the Pontiac Bonneville and get … 53.9 from the V-6 or 59.7 from the V-8. Spend more and get lower performance? Where is te 70 Hp/liter technology? GM 2005 technology is still even using push rods. No wonder Ward's Automotive said that GM could not even give new 3.8 liter engines to Honda or Toyota - for free. What is 2005 technology to GM is obsolete pre-1992 technology to the competition.

Why would anyone buy those lower performance products? No wonder a GM car costs more to build than a Mercedes product. Base price of the Chrysler 300 - $23,370. Of the Buick Lacross: $22,835. The Pontiac Bonnevile - $27,965. As industry insiders note, a Mercedes (Chrysler) product selling for same price also has a higher profit margin as well as the superior engine. Why? Which vehicle has the higher HP/liter? Notice again, Hp/liter means the superior product.

Ahh... but Hp/liter means nothing to some here. They know more than industry professionals. Then explain why GM cars make more noise, their larger engines wear faster, and have higher failure rates? Why do cars with lower HP/liter come from the auto company that has no profits and is losing market share every quarter? One need only look at that so-called *useless* number to see why GM lost $1 billion last quarter. Why they were literally giving away products with 0% interest sales incentives just to maintain market share.

Consumer Reports April issue lists their Quick Picks. For high ratings in all areas, not one GM product with their low performance engines is listed. Vehicles with 70 Hp/liter engines dominate the list in every category. For those who consider fuel economy important, one GM product made the list: Pontiac Vibe. The Pontiac Vibe comes with a 68, 72, or 94 Hp/liter engine. And who makes it? Toyota. To make the list - to have a 70 Hp/liter engine - GM sells a Toyota product. (yes GM does sell a few 70 Hp/liter products if you are willing to spend premium dollars).

For those who consider reliability important, again, 70 Hp/liter products dominate the list. A lowest performer in that high reliablity group being the Subaru Forester at 66 Hp/liter.

Other Quick Pick categories include safety and owner satisfaction. Every category is dominated by vehicles that do about or more than 70 Hp/liter. What is missing in every category? Low performance GM products that do only 52 or 60 Hp/per liter. Of course. Hp/liter strongly indicates product quality.

Numbers mean nothing because xoxoxoBruce and russotto are clearly more knowledgeable? They need not post numbers. They need only say that tw is wrong. That alone proves they must be right? Heaven forbid should they post any numbers. Why post supporting facts? Only those who must be always wrong would provide numbers and facts.

Let’s look at the list of “Used Cars to Avoid” for Chevy. Chevy Astro 1997-2003 never did more than 44 Hp/liter. 2002 Avalanche: 54 Hp/l. Camaro in ’97, ’99, & ’01: 50, 52, 53, 54 & 57 Hp/l engines (classic of what GM hypes as a high performance vehicle). Cavalier ’99-’00 & ’03: 52 & 63 Hp/l. Impala ’01: 53 Hp/l. Lumina ’97 & ’99: 52, 63 Hp/l (Chevy dropped the 63 Hp/l engine after 1997). Malibu ’97-’00: 48, 50, 62 Hp/l. Monte Carlo ’99: 52 & 53 Hp/l. Also listed as Used Cars to Avoid: Pontiac Bonneville ’98-’02: 54 Hp/l. Grand Am ’97-’01: 50, 51, 62 Hp/l. Grand Prix ’97-’98: 51 & 52 Hp/l.

That 62 Hp/l engine? Only available in 4 cylinder versions. Even GM could not sell a 4 cylinder engine that was lower performance. At least GM engineers got to do some designing.

Yes, some 70 Hp/liter models do exist in that long list of Used Cars to Avoid. But the list is dominated by vehicles with low performance engines. Again performance (horsepower per liter) suggests which vehicles will last longer, get better gas mileage, pollute less, and cost less to build.

Which should we believe? Two posters who just know that Hp/liter means nothing – and never post any supporting facts? Clearly they know better only because they say so. Or do we believe industry professionals who discuss the concept at length. John Hutton, chief power train engineer at Ford discusses Hp/liter when he noted how Ford had to do with only 4 liters what their 5 liter engines were doing. Roger Heimback, executive engineer for GMs power train systems group discussed engine development strictly in terms of Hp/liter. Jorg Abthoff noted how Daimler must get 15 to 20 percent more power from their current designs. All talk about Hp/liter.

xoxoxoBruce and russotto know better than these engineers? They say so and that is all one need believe?

GM recorded a $1billion loss in the past 3 months. GM cars have long been selling at pathetically low profit margins - low performance SUV covering up losses in their automobile line. One need not wait for spread sheets to report the obvious four to ten years later. Long before the spread sheets can measure it, the product oriented numbers have been reporting which companies will be in trouble. Hp/liter is an excellent example of which automobiles cost more to build, are less reliable, burn more gas, and pollute more. One simply does the HP/liter number for GM cars. At 52 Hp/liter, GM products are so pathetic as to clearly explain those $1billion losses.

Which company, with so many low performance products, also would not build a hybrid. Ten years after the US government gave them $100 million to do so, they still don't have one hybrid product. Ever hear the expression "corporate welfare"? Look who the recipient is. Free money and they don't have to build anything. What more do they want from the US government. Protection from the imports? They already got that.

Patriots believe in the free market. Patriots stopped buying Fords when all Ford products were designed in the accounting department. Patriots stopped buying Chryslers in 1979. Therefore Chrysler finally addressed their only problem - top management. Those in 1979 who were so anti-American as to buy Chrysler said, "Don't replace bad management with a guy who has a driver's license." Patriots always buy the best. Patriots believe in free markets. Not the communist propaganda called "Buy American". Patriots who stopped buying Ford and Chrysler products back then saved both companies. It took the threat of bankruptcy to remove the only problems in both Ford and Chrysler. Anti-Americans say "keep making crap" and therefore blindly "Buy American".

What is GM's problem? Their top management. What is the thing that removes bad management? Patriots buy the competition's products. German Chryslers and VWs. Japanese Hondas and Toyotas.

Unfortunately, many still buy GM products. Products so inferior as to require two extra pistons and other expensive hardware. GM will then blame everyone else but top management for their pathetic and grossly expensive products. They will beg you to 'buy American'. A product line that still does not feature 70 Hp/liter engines. They hope you never learn that fact.

The competition uses technologies pioneered in GM 30 years ago. And yet still GM does not install their own technology in every vehicle. Why? One need only read the reasons provided by xoxoxoBruce and russotto. Reasons? What reasons? They just know that Horsepower per liter means nothing. All those numbers and industry professionals be damned.

Clearly the very best car in the world is the Subaru Impreza WRX STi, which manages to get 300 HP out of a (turbocharged) 4 cylinder (!) 2450cc engine for 122.4 hp/liter.

Never mind, turns out the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo gets 276 hp out of a 2 liter for 138.

Oh, yeah?
 

I'll see your Subaru and raise you a Mazda RX-8 Wankel--161.5 hp/liter, NON-turbo

http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_r...mazda-rx-8.htm

Do you have an MBA tw? I only ask because it seems to be an MBA-ish trait to latch onto one little "factoid" (70 HP/litre!), which isn't accurate under all circumstances, and parrot it endlessly, as though it's some universal guiding truth. It's more commonly known as "tunnel vision."

As flawed as some of your logic is, you are right about one thing... modern low-end and middle-of-the-road GMs suck. But I'd enjoy the hell out of a Corvette Z06.

Well, they have a much bigger messenger to kill, since S&P just downgraded GM and Ford stock to 'junk'.

Right now, Kirk Kerkorian and his company still want to buy GM shares, but that might have more to do with GM's finance arm than the auto manufacturing.

It looks like GM management is running it into the ground. Unfortunately, unlike K-Mart, I don't see how any one person can get in there and fix all of the problems.

not to nitpick, but this has nothing to do with stock. what was downgraded was the credit rating of each company. similar to your FICO, each entity has a credit rating assigned, based on the books and financial outlook. this credit rating affects only debt (bonds) not equity/ownership (stock).

what that means is that if GM wants to borrow more money, the terms under which they can do so just got a lot worse.

the reason stock prices drop dramatically with this news is that stock price is based on expectation of profit. if GM has to pay significantly higher interest payments on newly issued debt then that will erode profits even further... and people aren't as likely to want to own the stock of a company with downward spiraling profit margin... and the cycle continues.

I stand corrected Lookout, it was the credit rating. What this means is that certain institutional investors will have to pull out since they can only own investment grade bonds. GM and Ford were at the lowest investment grade prior to the downgrade.

Astro 97-03 ~ engine is a problem some years especially 03 but the exhaust and ignition are a problem every year. Also in the later years cooling, fuel, paint/trim/rust, air conditioning and transmission are a problem. But by golly we'll recomend you not by this car because it doesn't put out 70hp/liter. :headshake
Right on down the list.......same shit....different car. They all have multiple problems. And what did they have to do? Move the damn car! But more than that, move it in a manner buyers in that catagory/price range expect. You know, performance. Hutton was talking about delivering the performance the customer expected...no, demanded, with a 4 liter engine. Why? Don't know. Somebody/something dictated that they would use a 4 liter. Could have been space restrictions or often as not marketing said so. Marketing?? Yes, to differentiate between models(read, price breaks) one of the most popular items is engine size. A $30k model will lose market share to a $20k model from the same manufacturer, with the same size engine, even if it has a lot more goodies. Dear me, I guess you're not a true patriot unless you have a good enough job(or credit) to buy the very best. OK, all you damn poor people...get out of our country...go to Mexico or Canada and don't come back until you've got enough money to be a true patriot. Damn pushrod lovers! :p
sigh TW, right for the wrong reasons....and so emotional, tsk, tsk.

Horsepower per liter is a trend. A trend that engineers can appreciate and MBAs will routinely ignore. Horsepower per liter is something a spread sheeter would never understand and the myopic would rather deny.

Even GM has pockets of unstifled innovation. A recent Corvette engine did 70 Hp/liter with only two valves per cylinder. But when Hp per liter is applies across the GM product line, it becomes painfully obvious why GM cars cost more to build and why GM has no domestic profits. GM cars must install two extra pistons - and all those other expensive parts such as valves, piston rings, cam and crank lobes, fuel system components, etc to only do same as everyone else. GM products have been so bad for so long as even exposed by one little factoid - Hp/liter.

No, I am not just focusing on Hp per liter to say GM products suck. Only a fool would say that number is complete proof for only one model. Provided is one damning number - historically accurate - that every consumer can calculate. GM products are so bad that even Horsepower per liter for GM vehicles is 20% lower.

When VW went from crap products back to being a profitable company, VW's 'Horsepower per liter' increased to seventy across the product line. VW went from 'bottom of the barrel' reliability to mid level reliability at the same time their products started doing 70 Horsepower per liter. Horsepower per liter indicates that VW was going to be profitable because HP/liter is a typical product oriented indicator that MBA types must ignore.

Thirty years ago, GM could have been doing what is now world standard. GM products are so crappy as to still not do what is world standard. xoxoxoBruce noted other reasons why GM products are such crap. They still sell as 2005 technology engines using push rods. That 3.8 liter engines is so crappy that an editorial in Wards Automotive said GM could not even give it away to Honda or Toyota. Obviously. Ward's Automotive said the 3.8 liter engine uses technology that only a bean counter could love. It is a pathetic 50+ HP per liter engine. Products so pathetic as to even use push rod technology.

GM had the technology long before anyone. But when MBAs get finished instituting cost controls, then product oriented advances get stifled. Obviously GM has no profits. Look at the Hp per liter number. Therein lies the reason why. Innovation from even 30 years ago could not be implemented. Today, even the MBA types can now see what the consumer could have seen ten years ago. GM products have low Horsepower per liter numbers which suggests the entire product line is crap. A number that even demonstrates why GM still has no hybrid vehicles.

GM does have pockets of stifled innovation. What has happened in Cadillac is contrary to a trend imposed by GM corporate. How many more pockets could be liberated? So maybe Kerkorian sees a long term profit as he did for Chrysler.

Others had considered doing same as Kerkorian with other intentions. For example Carl Icahn had intended to break up GM into parts. GMs value as separate entities has been long considered worth more than GM as a whole. Even smaller Toyota has an equity (stock market) value five times that of GM.

But Icahn discovered that GM is structured to make a break up difficult. For example, so that each division could not be sold off, 1970s GM created GM Assembly Division that manufacturers cars from each division in the same factory.

Does Kerkorian see part of GM that can be spun off as Delphi and EDS Systems were? Or does he see a company that could trash its current management to liberate pockets of innnovation?

Liberation of the innovators, after all, saved Chrysler. Iacocca simply put bean counters as subordinates the the car guys. Letting car guys make decisions resulted in profits so large and so fast that Chrysler could pay off those emergency loans in less than four years. Maybe Kerkorian sees another Chrysler. But again, that means GM must first perform serious top management shakeouts.

The current top man, Wagoner, never ran a profitable North American operations. So they made him the CEO. Now he is running even the international division into the ground. His entire job experience is a finance guy. Eliminating Wagoner and his peers could quickly liberate GM innovators. And so the question is whether GM stock at $30 per share has dropped enough to make this risky venture profitable to Kerkorian. If he does not intend to break GM up into more profitable entities, then he must be intending to eliminate the problem in GM - its top management. Or he may simply discover what both Ross Perot and Carl Icahn discovered - and back out.

What makes this rather confusing is that Ford is still profitable. GM has long been the sicker company with lesser products. Why is Ford getting lumped in with GM? Ford also has product line problems. One was four years of stifled new product developement when Jacque Nasser was running Ford into the ground. But Ford's problems are not as bad as GMs.

As a non-engineer, I am curious about what HP per liter means in the real world. Sure, the engine is more efficient at producing power for it's size, but I think a better measure is how much power is produced per unit of fuel. You can get a lot of extra power out of a small engine by bolting a turbocharger or supercharger on, but then it also uses more gas. Or you can drop a bigger engine into the car and it also use more gas. Either way, you are burning more gas to get more power.

I'm with you on making as efficent an engine as possible. Dual overhead cams with 4 valves per cylinder are better than the old pushrods/rocker arms I had on my first car. Fewer moving parts, less internal friction. Seems to me it should use less fuel to gain extra power. Along the same line of thinking, the Wankel engine seems promising for using less fuel too.

Some technology like superchargers and turbochargers seem to me to use more fuel per unit of HP than without. You are adding moving parts. More friction. More fuel.

Do you have statistics for which engines (not cars) are the most fuel efficient? Does it matter?

The HP per liter number for a fuel injected engine is not a valid for diesel or super charged engines. The latter only forces more fuel into the engine with an obvious increase in HP/liter. But the ballpark measurement among engines of the same technology is Hp per liter. For example, GM makes a supercharged Buick that only does 63 Hp per liter. And yet supercharged engines should average about 100 Hp per liter. The Buick supercharged engine is so low performance that even fuel injected engines are superior. But Buick does not install a supercharger to make a higher performance engine. They install a supercharger so that naive 'feel' they have a high performance engine.

Advanced diesels do something on the order of 40 Hp per liter. But diesels are more fuel efficient, for reasons below. IOW HP per liter performance number is unique within the technology. For normally aspirated engines, the carburetor engine at 35 HP per liter is usually inferior to a fuel injected engine. Ignoring that GMs throttle body fuel injected engine was about the same inferior performance of carbureted engine. GM used throttle body only because a throttle body injector cost less than a carburetor. GM knew their customers would read fuel injected and 'feel' they had a race car. Eventually GM had to relent - let their engineers do what everyone else had. 70 HP per liter engines use sequential fuel injection as was found in pre-WWII German fighter planes.

Does it sound confusing? It should. The problem gets rather more complex as we add new technologies to the brew.

Diesels are more efficient at using fuel for one simple reason. Application of energy to a changing load. Gasoline engines are poor at adapting to changing loads even with more gears in the transmission. We solve this gasoline engine weakness by making bigger gasoline engines. Bigger hypes the emotion. But making an engine that can adapt to changing loads is clearly sexier. And that too is a characteristic of higher HP per liter engines. They tend to adapt better to changing loads which is why higher Hp/liter aspirated engines more often meet EPA mileage numbers.

We put a 250 Horsepower engine in a 3000 pound car. How many Horsepower to move a 60,000 pound truck? It weighs 20 times more so it must need 20 times more horsepower? 5000 Horsepower? Of course not. The truck may have only 400 or 500 horsepower engines. One tenth the horsepower because diesel adapts better to changing loads. Since diesels adapt so much better, then trucks do not use gasoline.

How many Horsepower to maintain a car at 50 MPH? Well it has a 200 Horsepower engine. Therefore it must need at least 120 horsepower to maintain 50? No. Car maintains 50 MPH using 10 or less horsepower. Therein lays the problem. Because cars spend a small amount of time in acceleration and other higher load conditions, we then enlarge the 10 Horsepower engine to 250 Horsepower. Then a car can accelerate in 10 seconds while climbing the high.

The myopic among us still insist we must always output excessive horsepower so that we have this horsepower during rare acceleration times. The myopic demand that an engine's energy output not change so they don't have to downshift to climb a hill.

The car generates massive amounts of energy when it only needs 10 horsepower because sometimes the driver may periodically require hundreds of horsepower. Since gasoline is so cheap, then oversized engines have always been the simple solution. And yes, at $2.00 per gallon, history says the price of gasoline remains cheap. The bigger engine remains a cheap and simple solution.

So now we come to what is currently a crude technology. The Hybrid is about putting only 10 horsepower to the wheels when 10 HP is required. And putting 100 Horsepower to the wheels at rare times when high power is required. Electric motors better adapt to changing loads which is why diesel electric locomotives uses electric motors before WWII and why navy ships use electric motors to drive propellers. The hybrid shuts down its one liter engine when so much energy is not required. The conventional gasoline engines (current normally aspirated, turbo charged, etc technology) will never solve this changing load problem.

Adapting to changing loads has long been a simple solution to adapting more energy productively. But notice how complex even the simple solution is. Reality of numbers complicates things.

And yet the numbers are where innovation and the advancement of mankind come from. HP/liter measures performance only within a specific technology. A number that must be taken within context.

Reducing friction would do little to improve the HP/liter number. But things such as getting more useful energy from each gasoline molecule and adapting better to changing loads does result in higher performance.

Another factor in getting more work from less energy is a concept called thermodynamic efficiency. Currently maybe 10 to 20% of the energy in a gas tank is used. That much energy in the gas tank is wasted. Cars with higher performance numbers - greater Hp per liter - would be closer to the 20% number. Electric fossil fuel and nuclear power plants do maybe 30 to 35% thermodynamic efficiency - nuclear plants tending to be lower. Natural gas turbine plants are claiming numbers approaching 60%. The long term solution to innovation - to making smaller engines that produce more useful energy - is also found in addressing these thermodynamic efficiency problems. An engine lined in ceramics that did not absorb heat from the combustion chamber would mean more energy moves the piston or turbine. Other advanced techniques are studied, tested, and refined. But solutions typically take generations to develop.

Hydrogen fuel cells maybe could put higher fuel energy onto the drive wheels. But then we must look at the larger picture. The manufacturing, storage, and transportation of hydrogen means something like 70 to 90% of the energy is lost. Once we look at the bigger picture, then hydrogen fueled vehicles have ridiculously low thermodynamic efficiencies. Shhh. Don't tell GM executives. They are convinced that hydrogen is the future only because pollution does not exist. Those without dirt under their fingernails have used spread sheet reasoning as if it were science. They saw symptoms and then claimed they are scientifically informed.

Random snapshots of the problem have defined two ways of applying more existing energy to useful work. Adapting more energy only when the load changes. Addressing the thermodynamic efficiency problem. Both require innovation. The Hybrid being a superior and proven solution to adapting to changing load as diesel electric trains have been doing for 60 years. The hybrid then may make the turbine a viable solution. Fundamental engine changes such as (maybe) turbines to increase thermodynamic efficiency.

But for the consumer, there exists the normally aspirated gasoline driven vehicle. Within technology restrictions, the consumer maximizes his fuel economy, pollutes less, and gets a longer life vehicle when he uses newer technologies. Technologies that mean the engine gets higher horsepower per liter. Higher Hp/liter being a symptom of superior technologies. A symptom, meaning to better understand the underlying concepts, one must appreciate the adapting of energy to chaning loads and the thermodynamic efficiency problem.

To get more energy from each gasoline molecule, a normally aspirated engine means the HP/liter number must increase. This is what performance is really about. Those who never learned about cars foolishly believe a low performance but bigger engine is 'high performance'.

Well done TW, although I disagree with your take on GM's throttle body injection was about fooling the public.

A carburetor is nothing more than a barely controlled leak and expensive to make with all those little bits and pieces. With the advent of electronic controls made possible by the oxygen sensor it is much cheaper to build a throttle body injection unit that gives you much more control over the fuel flow especially on deceleration where a carb keeps feeding fuel as long as there is air flow.

The real reason they went to throttle body was to save the expense of retooling the intake manifolds, the rest of the plumbing and electronics for port injection. It was all about money.
Even when port injection became standard it was batch with sequential a ways down the road.

Putting a "fuel injection" sticker on the fender is a marketing deal. If they didn't inflate the tires to save air, marketing would say " Now, with new flat tires". Those people don't have a clue.


Engines and motors do work by transforming potential energy into torque.
Gasoline engines produce maximum torque at relatively high RPM.
Diesels engines at relatively low RPM and motors(electric) at no RPM.
Diesels and motors also produce more torque for the potential energy used.

Big trucks use up to 27 forward gears to keep the diesels running at the RPM where the maximum torque is produced for maximum efficiency. It's still not great efficiency but they're doing the best they can with what they got.

Motors have the advantage of maximum torque where it is needed most, which is the initial movement from rest, plus the ability increase the torque by feeding it more energy(electricity) with changing load.

This is why motors have always been the best solution for propulsion but unlike locomotives and ships, automobiles have not been big enough to carry means to supply the power for the motor(s). As generating equipment became more efficient the possibility of onboard generation became a reality. Of course California's zero emission mandate rules out hybrids, but until they make some great advances in battery technology the only thing left is hybrids, so CA better get real.

Hybrids provide their biggest advantage in urban stop and go, where the fossil fuel engine shuts off at stops and the regenerative braking recoups some loss. Driving down the expressway at a steady 50/60 mph won't give the hybrid nearly as much advantage over a fossil fuel engine and certainly not enough to offset the expense of buying and maintenance. That's comparing one model like the Honda with and without hybrid technology.

Oh, and "Performance" is exactly that. What she'll do. Doesn't matter how or why.....it's simply what she'll do. "High Performance" means she's faster. Again, it doesn't matter how or why..."High Performance" means she's faster. :biggrin:

Cool. Thank you both for such informative posts.

I was hoping you would ask more questions. I still had one more basic concept to explain. But the previous post was getting too long.

Gasoline engines have a narrow range at which they burn gasoline most efficiently. For most cars, this peaks as somewhere between 2400 and 2900 RPMs. This is why shifting is mostly conducted in a range from 2000 to 3200 RPMs (again varies by engine design).

Most interesting is how an engine manages to idle at 800 RPMs. The efficiency of that engine is lowered. IOW give an idling engine more oxygen for the same gasoline at idle, and the engine will increase speed to something like 1200 or 1600 RPMs. That’s right. Idling is (proportionally) a massive increase in gasoline for energy produced. Idling is intentionally making an engine less efficient.

Some neat tricks used over the past decades. Carburetors would dump rich mixtures of fuel into an engine that is expected to be going slower. After all, the engine thought it should be idling which means dumping more gas and less air in the engine. You heard backfiring as the vehicle decellerated. The foolish 'feel' that is a cool sound. But backfiring was always the sound of a crappy engine dumping gasoline into an engine that does not need it. It is the sound of a catalytic converter being flooded with more hydrocarbons to uselessly burn.

Fuel injected cars substantially decreased pollution by simply turning off fuel when decellerating. No backfiring is the 'cool' sound of a superior engine that is not wasting fuel and not destroying the exhaust system. Some Harley owners won't like that reality. Backfiring means a crappy engine.

Hybrids take innovation one step farther. Idling is the engine burning gasoline in a most inefficient way - ie the rich mixture meaning more gas and less air. Intentionally making the engine less efficient so that it spins slower - 800 RPMs. Hybrids simply turn off the engine rather than run so inefficiently. Why waste gas in idle and 'bumper to bumper' traffic? Idling causes some of the highest percentages of pollution. Obviously. The engine is intentionally running a minimum efficiency. Simply run the gasoline engine only when it can use fuel efficiently to recharge a battery. Hybrids only burn gas when gas can be burned more efficiently.

What is a solution to rush hour traffic? Hybrids waiting and not burning fuel most inefficiently. Watching a car idling in rush hour traffic is, to me, one of the most gross and perverted things we will see during the whole day. But then I appreciate why idling in bumper to bumper traffic (without a Hybrid) is so destructive.

How to make a gasoline engine (or any other fossil fuel engine) more fuel efficient? Operate only at its efficient point (maybe 2800 RPMs), then more energy will be used to useful purpose. This little trick means better thermodynamic efficiency AND better adapting to a changing load.

The above saved for last because it is some of the easiest to explain and comprehend.

I must relate one personal experience. I studied the electronic fuel injection on the 280Z(?) (1976). It featured no fancy computer. Control electronics even used 1960s technology - 741 op amps. It was one of the most simple and yet most fascinatingly advanced design I had ever seen. The Z was but another reason why I was driven to learn more. First pass through those tech manuals and I knew fuel injection was the future long overdue.

I did not realize trucks were using 27 gears. Is it three overlapping ranges of 9 speeds?

I have long been intrigued by the CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission). But have not had the opportunity to study the CVTs found in the Toyota Prius or some Fords. This too has long been an overdue technology that may become obsoleted by Hybrid advances before it ever gets a chance.

CVT long ago being another method of adapting to a changing load.

I also agree with your perceptions on GMs throttle body injector. But that design always made me sick. For example, GM management went through painful intermediate designs - throttle body and multi-port - before they finally let the engineers design the injection system even found in WWII German fighter planes. Now you would think GM would then only put the sequential injectors on all cars. Nope. The accountants said if they abandoned throttle body and multi-port, then they would lose all that development (invested) money. So GM made three different fuel systems. That meant stocking and buying different fuel systems for all factories and stocking spare parts for all three designs. Just another reason why GM products cost so much more to build.

How did Honda do it? When Honda designed a four speed, they stopped making all three speed transmissions. When they made a five speed, then the four speed design was immediately discontinued. Therefore their factories only purchased and installed one part. Their dealers only stocked spare parts for one transmission that year. Honda made it simple - rather than cost control. When Honda made a fuel injection, then only made sequential. They did it right the first time.

:typing: "Help! I can't stop typing!" -- tw


Just kidding, tw. Very informative and clearly explained.

I'd be incredibly surprised if the majority of modern cars were most efficient below 3000 RPM. Maybe pushrod V8s, but DOHC 4s are a different animal entirely. And spark-ignition engines are typically most efficient near (but not at) wide-open throttle.

The (thermodynamic) efficiency of an engine at idle is not particularly important. The fuel efficiency of the vehicle containing that engine is zero regardless; an idling engine isn't moving the vehicle.

CVTs have long had a small niche in the economy segment of the market. The two big problems they have is that the rubber belts they use can't handle a lot of power, and they cause poor throttle response and even worse perceived throttle response (you push the pedal, hear the engine rev up, and THEN the car speeds up). Audi has a steel-belted electronically controlled CVT which supposedly solves both these problems, but it's only available on a few models. It's unlikely CVTs will be obseleted by hybrids, as often CVTs are paired with hybrids.

As far as I know, no one has yet managed to get a practical _serial_ hybrid (like that in a locomotive) into a car.

CVTs are on Nissans and Infinitis now. I drove a G35 with it. It was faaaaabulous. And I hate driving automatics, but I would drive this thing.

I don't know how CVTs are made today, but I saw some old antique car from the early 1900 that had a CVT. It was pretty basic. The driveshaft ended in a flat disk that was maybe a foot or two in diameter. Then a rubber wheel rode that disk like a needle on a record player, except without that groove. The driver could move the wheel in and out on the spinning disk to either go slower in the center or faster in the edge. The wheel drove the axle. I was with my grandfather at the time, and we both marveled at this thing that was so cool, and so simple. I wonder how efficient it was. The friction fit of the wheel against the disk was the weak link.

tw likes to talk about technology so old it was on WWII planes. This thing was from the 1920s or so.

I found it with a Google search. No identifying information though.

Very, very weak. :lol: Yes, 9 in the trans and 3 behind it.

I've never heard a catylitic converter equiped car backfire. The cat being so hot and close to the engine should burn the excess fuel as quickly as it is presented. Backfires usually require a build up of fuel to a concentration where it will flash explode. I'll have to get new hearing aid batteries. ;)

My first car, a 1984 Datsun 210, backfired with some regularity.

How many miles on it Wolf? Sounds like the catylitic was dead. :confused:

48K when I bought it, 88K when I traded it in.

The problem did actually stop eventually, about 2 years after I bought the car ... that would be "eventually" after the original exhaust cracked off in front of the cat and they had to replace everything from the manifold back ... including the cat.

Is not the photo in post #44 about the same drive train that's, was used in Snapper lawn mowers? To go faster it move to outside of disk.

Previously posted were discussions about GM's Mona Lisa room, created by one who would later start the Saturn division. It was and still remains an example of why GM products are so bad.

Maryann Keller again writes, in waves, of problems in GM. An informed person best never misses what she writes about cars. Even the LA Times article (that created GM revenge) was not so damning. From the Washington Post of 12 Jun 2005 on page B1:

This article is interesting.

At least this is a reverse-Enron, with senior management locked out and the rank-and-file able to bail if they want.

GM now has lost something like $5billion this year. Trivial intelligence is necessary to appreciate why GM is losing so much money. Routinely perform HP/Liter calculations for their crappy engines. GM products need typically two extra pistons to obtain same horsepower. So the technology originally pioneered by GM in the early 1970s still will not be sold in that brand new car - using the same technology from 1955 models. From the NY Times of 4 Dec 2005: Today we have another GM solution. Promote more MBA types into top management. From Bloomberg News of 6 Dec 2005: GM was once making a profit in that International division when Louis Hughes was runnning it. Hughes is a car guy. But Rick Wagoner, the finance guy (bean counter) who was running North American into losses, instead, got GM's top executive position.

Hughes left. MBA types ran his operation for years losing money. At what time does someone in GM start cutting the heads off of finance guys and start promoting car guys? When we finally drive this anti-American company into bankruptcy so that it will fix the problem - top management?

Can you believe it. They are still designing new engines with 1950 push rod, obsolete technology. Then promoting more of the problem - bean counters - to solve their crap product line.

Let's see. The government gave them how many hundreds of millions of dollars in 1994 to build a hybrid? Where are those products? It requires an MBA to worry about the product - to innovate. Finance people cannot innovate except on spread sheet. In some places, spread sheet innovation is still called fraud - when they don't contribute enough to Bush Cheney campaign funds.

Here's to all you fools who voted for an MBA educated (mental midget) president - and buy GM cars designed by MBAs. Thank you for pomoting the 'heart attack of America'.

I believe in being fair to Republicans. You don't. I think that's known as bigotry, tw. Not a mental problem with me, but it keeps your mind in some pretty unsavory ruts.

I buy German autos, and voted twice for Bush. That's because I'm brighter than you, you know, and I never tire of reminding you of that. The Democratic Party is once again demonstrating they have no more ability to win the war than you do. Crankery is bad for your brain, laddie, but you aren't capable of understanding that.

It has been another bad week for General Motors. Their bond rating has dropped two more notches to Grade B. One notch above a worst possible rating - Grade C. Bond analysts are being generous to GM. General Motor's product line under the MBA Rick Wagoner has become that worse. Their engines alone are some of world's worst.

Other automakers, since the 1970s, design new engines with overhead cams. GM will debut two new engines next year - both using 1950 technology push rod designs - not overhead cams. No problem. If George Jr can get a 47% approval rating by being incompetent, then enough stupid Americans will also buy this - what we already know will be - GM crap. Industry analysts who have seen what are coming have already panning those crappy products. So bad that those new products should be aborted in the foundry.

Wagoner would not know. Where is his driver's license?

Kirk Kerkorian had declared intentions to become a major GM stockholder as he was when Chrysler made a comeback. Kerkorian bought a maximum number of shares - 9.9%. Quietly last week, Kerkorian sold some 12 million of his 56 million shares. Obviously for major losses. But that suggests Kerkorian is coming to a same conclusion that both Carl Ichan and Warren Buffet had long ago concluded. GM will remain that poor an investment. Their bad management is that deeply entrenched.

While listening to Rush Limbaugh's show last week, who was a guest right after coming out of the White House? Rick Wagoner. That caught my attention. Why is Wagoner visiting the White House? Do you remember the $8+billlion that a mental midget president gave to the airlines with no strings attached? He did so and Americans said something equivalent of, "We don't care how many die in New Orleans." Airlines then burned through that money in months and went begging to George for more. A complete gift so that badly run airlines would protect their only problem - their MBA management.

So who is on George Jr's gift list this year? Let's see. A $450,000 campaign contribution from First Energy permitted them to keep running a nuclear reactor with its potential Three Mile Island problem. Happy Holiday. Citizens of Toledo don't matter when there is money to scoff. Will George Jr now gift Rick Wagoner so that stockholders don't rise up against Wagoner - an MBA with George Jr's competence? Well, Wagoner made same type of lame arguments on Limbaugh's show that George Jr also used to justify unauthorized wire tapping. With some basic newspaper reading, one should have seen right through his lies.

Somehow, Wagoner forgets to mention the pension funds and health benefit that were underfunded many years ago so that GM's 'profit and loss' sheets looked better. IOW the real losses should show more than $5billion hole that now exists. GM should make up those missing funds - with interest. So Wagoner claims those 'unfair' pension funds and health benefits cause GM's downturn. Bull. Those accounts should have been funded when employees were still working. Rick Wagoner and his predecessor used that money to cover up massive losses years ago. Rick Wagoner hopes you don't remember that missing fact when he blames others.

So yes. A visit to Rush Limbaugh - to talk to radio listeners who do not think. Who blindly believe what they are told. Who forget to ask why those pensions funds were so underfunded years ago. (Let’s not forget that George Jr can have a government Pension Guarantee Trust Fund pick up the tab for those pension funds - more corporate welfare.) After all if Rick Wagoner visited George Jr, then Rick Wagoner must be a good guy - to Rush Limbaugh listeners? Only if you believe in astrology, spontaneous regeneration, intelligent design, and that George Jr never lies.

GM in one month has become worse. Bet that your government will give GM free money - this time fund the underfunded GM pension fund. Only thing that will save GM is bankruptcy - so that American workers don't lose their jobs. Bankruptcy so that Rick Wagoner is removed. But George Jr will always protect rich people at the expense of workers. And then lie - claim he saved American jobs. George Jr will save the only job that provides rich campaign contributions - Rick Wagoner.

Will Toyota become the world's #1 automaker next year? Toyota announced next year's sales will increase another 10%. Toyota permits car guys - not bean counters - to design their products. Wagoner probably hopes to add Rush Limbaugh listeners as customers - so that he can continue getting rich as American workers (current and future) lose more jobs and their pensions.

So do I. Notice how I never once mentioned what a crook Tom DeLay really is? Not that I expect Urbane Guerilla to be honest and mention it. That would be too honest and too much against his political agenda.

Well, duh. Isn't this some sort of Republican platform plank or something? For Republicans, everything starts with the business. The people who make up the workforce are simply pieces in the machine. Why do you think they call it "Human Resources"? People are just another tool to be managed, exactly the same as an inventory of spare parts or hard drives, man.

Labor costs money, it does not produce money. Or so goes the Republican financial theory. That's why jobs are being sent where people will do them for the least possible amount of money.

Don't think for a moment that people like Bush look at people like us as anything other than cattle, just as disposable, and just as subservient.

Disclaimer: The Democrats are no better.

From MarketWatch.com on 21 Dec 2005: Today, GM's stock dropped another 2.15%.

Michael Jackson's Thriller was flying off the shelves. ...
Some how I'm glad I missed that one.

Not on the evidence, dear boy, not on the evidence. Threads with numerous posts by you that do not include less-than-justifiable railing at Republicans by you are more the exception than the rule.

Don't use a CVT in an electric final drive when you can have the series-wound motor. I understand this type does not need a transmission and its friction/heat losses because it develops high torque at near zero rpm. Useful for the motor-at-wheel kind of installation most electrics seem to be using.

Gravely brand power mowers also used a pretty feeble CVT back in the day. I used to wrestle one of the things as a teenager. The moving wheel was rubber-tired, the fixed wheel was steel. Power? -- not. This alleged self-propulsion was of some help getting the great heavy thing moving, but hell, I could push the thing along on my own legs two times faster than it could drive itself. Maybe the drive was prone to slippage, as I certainly never stalled it from (relatively) high speed that I can recall.