[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

Ahem.

Catalytic converters were not introduced to reduce lead, as is sometimes suggested. It was the drive to reduce nitrogen oxides and CO that forced the converter

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.

Ahem.

The catalytic converter does a great job at reducing the pollution, but it can still be improved substantially. One of its biggest shortcomings is that it only works at a fairly high temperature. When you start your car cold, the catalytic converter does almost nothing to reduce the pollution in your exhaust.
One simple solution to this problem is to move the catalytic converter closer to the engine. This means that hotter exhaust gases reach the converter and it heats up faster, but this may also reduce the life of the converter by exposing it to extremely high temperatures. Most carmakers position the converter under the front passenger seat, far enough from the engine to keep the temperature down to levels that will not harm it.

Preheating the catalytic converter is a good way to reduce emissions. The easiest way to preheat the converter is to use electric resistance heaters. Unfortunately, the 12-volt electrical systems on most cars don't provide enough energy or power to heat the catalytic converter fast enough. Most people would not wait several minutes for the catalytic converter to heat up before starting their car. Hybrid cars that have big, high-voltage battery packs can provide enough power to heat up the catalytic converter very quickly.

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

I'm sure every executive you personally know at GM would make me question your definition of exectutive.