View Single Post
Old 04-16-2005, 12:40 AM   #8
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
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.

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 descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote