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.
|
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").