Quote:
|
Originally Posted by russotto
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").