Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
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. ...
Comparing a 1975 GM V-8 to the Mercedes of same vintage. Yes, the Merc will probably last longer. And yes it was machined to closer tolerances but it also cost 3 times as much.
|
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.