[xoxoxoBruce]

In TW’s original post he made the assertion that GM’s management sucks. I agree with this assertion. However, he offered up as proof the magic 70 hp/liter as evidence of higher efficiency, better mileage and longevity which is utter bullshit.
Russotto offered an opinion which TW twisted until it was unrecognizable and belittled the poster as unworthy. You’ve seen it before.

Actually I made two mistakes. One was trying to respond to TW’s jumping around history and technology, and trying to answer his accusations of things I didn’t say, when I was too busy to devote that kind of attention to the thread.
The second, and more important mistake, again because of hurrying, was to reverse the chronological order of the catalytic converters. I apologize if I misled anyone.

More hp/liter doesn’t prove anything because there are so many ways to make hp. Better manufacturing tolerances, better balance for lower vibration (preferably by design and care rather than counter balance), better air flow in and out, more accurate spark and fuel delivery/timing, higher compression, variable valve timing, supercharging, turbo charging and NOS not to be confused withNOx.

I said

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.

And TW responded

Two engines using same technology. SNIP 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.

Carburated, pushrod Chevy is the same technology as an overhead cam, fuel injected Merc. Yeah right.
Next

“So why was technology stifled until fuel injection (and other innovations) appeared in 1992 in competition products?”

1992?? By '92 everything had injection for several years. Before Bosch invented the oxygen sensor enabling electronic fuel injection and electronic engine management, fuel injection was a nightmare. Prestigious, yes, but tremendously complex to manufacture and maintain. Easily clogged, impossible to keep in tune more than a few months at a time, and no advantage for street driving. That’s one reason the Mercedes engines cost 3 times as much as GM’s to buy.
I also said mercs cost 3 times what a Chevy does, in reply to TW’s,

“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.”

I guess “patriots’ are much richer than most of us if they can spend 3 times as much for a merc.
So then he says,

‘xoxoxoBruce - inventing numbers such as a Mercedes costs three times as much to manufacturer does not make your posts credible.”

You see how he’s twisted what I said from the cars cost the consumer 3 times as much to the manufacturing costs being 3 times as high? Man, your nose must be growing.
I also said,

”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.”

And he responded,

, “BTW automakers were not forbidden to sell their emission technologies to other companies - even their competition. Why is the EGR valve developed in Chrysler found in all other cars? Clearly this must violate some federal law... not. But then I keep knocking down myth after myth.”

This time "work together" becomes "sell". Liar, liar, pants on fire. :p
All the manufacturers had a deadline to come up with a system of controlling their pollutants. The Fed’s were afraid collusion would prevent independent research to come up with the best possible solution(s) so they made it illegal to work together or even to know what the other was doing. After they had met their targets they were free to use any method to meet their mandated levels.
Make up a myth and knock it down. Wonder if he knows anyone named Sancho Panza?

An engine cylinder has a set displacement so it needs a certain amount of fuel to maintain a ratio of 14.7 pounds of air for each pound of fuel. At times of low or no load it's wasting that required minimum fuel but if they give it less fuel the combustion temperature soars and the engine will melt down plus the NOx climbs with the temperature. The ERG valve replaces part of the oxygen rich air with oxygen poor exhaust gas so they can withhold part of the fuel and not go lean, causing the temperature and NOx to climb.
Unfortunately the ERG valve is a trouble spot because its controling exhaust flow which tends to clog the valve with deposits. But since GM didn't invent it, that's ok.

You know...I’m beginning to think Bush didn’t lie.