The Cellar - View Single Post

tw · 05-04-2001, 09:05 PM

Once upon a time, cars were designed in companies run by 'car guys'. The average performance 350 cu in engine output about 200 horsepower. 1960 engineers also developed high performance versions - including the famous 350/350. That was 350 cubic inches producing 350 horsepower. That was high performance.

Then came the 1970s, MBAs, pollution problems, cost controls, etc. So how to you produce high performance engines when the top man is a cost controller? You lie. In this thread are classic symptoms of those lies. You make people think that high performance means big engines. That is the same propaganda technique was used on Madision Ave to addict 14 year olds. Twist the truth so that the many 'feel' they know - the facts be damned.

Making decisions based upon feelings: a murder of seven Challenger astronauts, plug-in surge protectors, blaming Japan when the American economy was shit, not blaming Spindler and Sculley for the destruction of innovation in Apple Computers, "there was plenty of blame to go around", the price of gasoline is too high. All are conclusion based upon feel rather than upon fact. It is just what makes 'spin doctors' so rich.

NACAR is a classic example. They use a 5.7 liter engine to only go 140 MPH. Indy racers use something around a 2.x engine to go 220 MPH - IOW put almost 2.5 times more engery in the car with less than half the engine.

Horsepower per liter does measure high performance. Anybody can build a 10 liter engine. Design News demonstrated how three engineers designed and prototyped a 7 liter engine in just over 3 months. It was big. Using the logic of russotto, it was high performance. It was not high performance. The engineers said so. It was a big, low performance engine - which is what they needed. They needed a higher horsepower engine where size was not relevant. IOW they threw together a low performance, higher power engine.

GM performance from this months Consumer Reports: Chevy, Buick, Pontiac and GMC sell 14 basic engines with various degrees of performance.

Two 4 cylinder engines are 1.8 liters : 69 Hp/liter actually designed by Toyota AND the 2.0 liter : 63 Hp/liter engine by Iszuzu. GM's own 2.2 come in 52 and 53 Hp/liter - clearly lower perforance engines for 2000 standards but high performance engines by 1960s standards.

V-6 engines. 3.1 liter comes in 55 or 56 Hp/l versions. 3.4 liter engine has four performance variations - 50, 51, 53, and 54. The 3.8 has two performances - 53 & 54 Hp/liter. The 4.3 is the dog still made mostly for SUVs at 41, 44, and 46 HP/l. Why upgrade the dog when look what just came off the drawing board: a model year 2002 Chevy Avalanche contains their new 4.2 liter enginer - a 64 Horsepower per liter engine. Amazing! Chevy sells an average performance engine. Why the higher perforance? Even GM eventually let their engineers sell current technology - all be it too late.

V-8 engines are also low performance since they are really only for those who 'feel' rather than think - those who think big means high performance.

4.8 liter : 46 and 57 Hp/liter
5.3 : 53 Hp/l
5.7 : 53, 54, 56, and a special 57 Hp/l only for Camaro.
6.0 : 46 Hp/l

However I left out one engine recently designed. A new higher performance version of the 5.7 has finally arrived just for the Corvette. All other 5.7 liter engines remain low performance. But this last year, the Corvette now has 67 Hp/liter - average performance engine (which I understand they did with only two valves per cylinder!).

If Hp/liter did not measure performance, then why do the high performance cars get high performance engines - as indicated by Horsepower per liter? Why do older technology engines with less machine tolerances also get lower horsepower per liter? Why? Hp/l measures performance.

Let's look at other automakers. Lexus cars have five versions of three engines - all between 70 and 73 Horsepower per liter. No wonder Lexus are so quiet, responsive, reliable and have better performance.

Acura has seven versions of three engines in various performance levels of 64, 69, 70, 78, 81, 94 and 108 horsepower per liter (all fuel injected - no superchargers or turbochargers). Acura, a higher performance automobile also demonstrates that Horsepower per liter measures performance.

Porshe: 78 and 80 Horsepower per liter.

Toyota makes a high performance car called Celica at 78 Hp/liter AND 100 horsepower per liter. Honda makes the high performance S2000: 120 horsepower per liter. At 2 liters, this high performance car produces more horsepower than a 5.0 Mustang. Why? 5.0 Mustangs always were low performance cars.

Even in turbo and supercharged vehicles, the Hp/liter holds. Audi TT - a car almost impossible to obtain in Europe or the US is 100 and 125 Hp per liter only using turbocharing. Turbocharged VW and Audi A4 only do about 94 Hp/liter. Did you know that the Buick Regal /Park Ave and Pontiac Gran Prix have supercharged engines? Therefore they must be higher performance than Audis and VWs. Wrong. These GM products are a pathetic 63 horsepower per liter - making GMs supercharged products even inferior to every non-turbo / non-superchargeds Lexus!

Again Hp/liter measures performance.

Of course if you are Madison Ave, then you know the public is stupid. They can be made to believe anything (including a George Bush promise to protect the environment and to protect human rights). Therefore lie to the nieve. Get them to think high performance is a big engine - fast car. That is just what NASCAR has you believe.

Although NASCARs are much higher performance than licensed vehicles, they are low performance compared to most racing cars. NASCAR uses the biggest engines to go the slowest. In racing, NASCAR can lie to a public easily decieved (one that actually believed smoking was good for your health). You see it in previous posts of this thread. Some actually believe that Horsepower per liter does not measure performance.

Big never measured performance. If it did then Russians would have the world's highest performance jet fighters. Performance ,even in fighter planes, is measured by things such as more horsepower per pound of engine.

Size never measured performance - except where people are easily decieved.

05-04-2001, 09:05 PM	#21
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Re: What companies do you like? Once upon a time, cars were designed in companies run by 'car guys'. The average performance 350 cu in engine output about 200 horsepower. 1960 engineers also developed high performance versions - including the famous 350/350. That was 350 cubic inches producing 350 horsepower. That was high performance. Then came the 1970s, MBAs, pollution problems, cost controls, etc. So how to you produce high performance engines when the top man is a cost controller? You lie. In this thread are classic symptoms of those lies. You make people think that high performance means big engines. That is the same propaganda technique was used on Madision Ave to addict 14 year olds. Twist the truth so that the many 'feel' they know - the facts be damned. Making decisions based upon feelings: a murder of seven Challenger astronauts, plug-in surge protectors, blaming Japan when the American economy was shit, not blaming Spindler and Sculley for the destruction of innovation in Apple Computers, "there was plenty of blame to go around", the price of gasoline is too high. All are conclusion based upon feel rather than upon fact. It is just what makes 'spin doctors' so rich. NACAR is a classic example. They use a 5.7 liter engine to only go 140 MPH. Indy racers use something around a 2.x engine to go 220 MPH - IOW put almost 2.5 times more engery in the car with less than half the engine. Horsepower per liter does measure high performance. Anybody can build a 10 liter engine. Design News demonstrated how three engineers designed and prototyped a 7 liter engine in just over 3 months. It was big. Using the logic of russotto, it was high performance. It was not high performance. The engineers said so. It was a big, low performance engine - which is what they needed. They needed a higher horsepower engine where size was not relevant. IOW they threw together a low performance, higher power engine. GM performance from this months Consumer Reports: Chevy, Buick, Pontiac and GMC sell 14 basic engines with various degrees of performance. Two 4 cylinder engines are 1.8 liters : 69 Hp/liter actually designed by Toyota AND the 2.0 liter : 63 Hp/liter engine by Iszuzu. GM's own 2.2 come in 52 and 53 Hp/liter - clearly lower perforance engines for 2000 standards but high performance engines by 1960s standards. V-6 engines. 3.1 liter comes in 55 or 56 Hp/l versions. 3.4 liter engine has four performance variations - 50, 51, 53, and 54. The 3.8 has two performances - 53 & 54 Hp/liter. The 4.3 is the dog still made mostly for SUVs at 41, 44, and 46 HP/l. Why upgrade the dog when look what just came off the drawing board: a model year 2002 Chevy Avalanche contains their new 4.2 liter enginer - a 64 Horsepower per liter engine. Amazing! Chevy sells an average performance engine. Why the higher perforance? Even GM eventually let their engineers sell current technology - all be it too late. V-8 engines are also low performance since they are really only for those who 'feel' rather than think - those who think big means high performance. 4.8 liter : 46 and 57 Hp/liter 5.3 : 53 Hp/l 5.7 : 53, 54, 56, and a special 57 Hp/l only for Camaro. 6.0 : 46 Hp/l However I left out one engine recently designed. A new higher performance version of the 5.7 has finally arrived just for the Corvette. All other 5.7 liter engines remain low performance. But this last year, the Corvette now has 67 Hp/liter - average performance engine (which I understand they did with only two valves per cylinder!). If Hp/liter did not measure performance, then why do the high performance cars get high performance engines - as indicated by Horsepower per liter? Why do older technology engines with less machine tolerances also get lower horsepower per liter? Why? Hp/l measures performance. Let's look at other automakers. Lexus cars have five versions of three engines - all between 70 and 73 Horsepower per liter. No wonder Lexus are so quiet, responsive, reliable and have better performance. Acura has seven versions of three engines in various performance levels of 64, 69, 70, 78, 81, 94 and 108 horsepower per liter (all fuel injected - no superchargers or turbochargers). Acura, a higher performance automobile also demonstrates that Horsepower per liter measures performance. Porshe: 78 and 80 Horsepower per liter. Toyota makes a high performance car called Celica at 78 Hp/liter AND 100 horsepower per liter. Honda makes the high performance S2000: 120 horsepower per liter. At 2 liters, this high performance car produces more horsepower than a 5.0 Mustang. Why? 5.0 Mustangs always were low performance cars. Even in turbo and supercharged vehicles, the Hp/liter holds. Audi TT - a car almost impossible to obtain in Europe or the US is 100 and 125 Hp per liter only using turbocharing. Turbocharged VW and Audi A4 only do about 94 Hp/liter. Did you know that the Buick Regal /Park Ave and Pontiac Gran Prix have supercharged engines? Therefore they must be higher performance than Audis and VWs. Wrong. These GM products are a pathetic 63 horsepower per liter - making GMs supercharged products even inferior to every non-turbo / non-superchargeds Lexus! Again Hp/liter measures performance. Of course if you are Madison Ave, then you know the public is stupid. They can be made to believe anything (including a George Bush promise to protect the environment and to protect human rights). Therefore lie to the nieve. Get them to think high performance is a big engine - fast car. That is just what NASCAR has you believe. Although NASCARs are much higher performance than licensed vehicles, they are low performance compared to most racing cars. NASCAR uses the biggest engines to go the slowest. In racing, NASCAR can lie to a public easily decieved (one that actually believed smoking was good for your health). You see it in previous posts of this thread. Some actually believe that Horsepower per liter does not measure performance. Big never measured performance. If it did then Russians would have the world's highest performance jet fighters. Performance ,even in fighter planes, is measured by things such as more horsepower per pound of engine. Size never measured performance - except where people are easily decieved.