[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

First of all Nitros Oxide (laughing gas the dentist uses) is a legitimate way to increase hp and NOT obviously made only to confuse the issue.

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.

If your comparing the Mercedes to GMs sold in Calcutta, but not in NY.

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.

About ten years ago, profit margins for GM products averaged - $125 per vehicle. $125 for a less than $20000 vehicle. Ford and Chrysler were both earning about $1000 per vehicle. GM automobiles were sold at a loss which is why GM was about 2 hours away from bankruptcy sometime on or after 1990. One of the biggest losers was the Chevy Caprice. It has been long understood that GMs costs are some of the world's highest - higher than Daimler Benz. (Maybe Fiat had higher costs?)

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.

For those who listen to silly propaganda about labor costs: first do the numbers. A man earning about $30,000 per year on the assembly line takes 120 man-hours to manufacture one vehicle. Labor costs were about $2500 per vehicle. At $2500 per vehicle, a car company could not be profitable even in the late 1980s. At $1200 labor per vehicle, still GMs costs are some of the highest in the world. Labor has always been that little in the price of a new car. But at $2500 per vehicle, you can understand why GM tried to sell Chevy Cavaliers at $12000 per car. Eventually GM had to lower the base price to under $10000 per car because better designed imports took less man-hours to build.

Was Japanese labor cheaper? More myths. Japanese auto industry labor has traditionally been more expensive per hour than America. Typically 10% higher paid.

GMs problems are directly traceable to bad designs that cost more to build and that have worse reliability problems. And yes, the Daimler Benz products have long cost less to build than comparatively equipped GM models. It is why Mercedes are even found in ghettos such as the Gaza Strip. 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.

The Catalytic Converter was invented to remove the NOx (nitrogen oxides) that come from higher combustion temps. The higher temps are required to make the engine operate more efficiently. Engine coolant temps that used to be 160 to 180 degrees F are now over 200 to keep the combustion chambers and incoming charge passages hot.

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. In fact, some carburetors were so badly constructed that early catalytic converters would set fire to the grass. Too much gasoline dumped into the catalytic converter cause too much heat and grass fires.

To do the same thing (mostly found in low performance American engines) was an air pump. Pump more air into the exhaust to burn the gasoline the engine did not. Nonsense. Innovators instead burn hydrocarbons in the engine - the higher performance 70 HP/liter engine.

This nonsense of about 'burning gas in the exhaust pipe' was made most glaringly obvious when DeLorean rescued Vega from MBA corporate management. Corporate executives wanted GM's Rochester carburetor in Vegas. DeLorean (a product oriented thinker) protected the Holley 5210C (licensed by Weber) that caused more fuel to be burned inside the engine. DeLorean summarizes the story quite bluntly in his book "On a Clear Day, You Can See GM". Rochester carbs were designed by bean counters. Holley innovated - licensed and tuned the world's best carburetor to be used on small engines. When DeLorean left GM in 1977, then the Holley Carb was immediately replaced in 1978 Vegas. But because the carb was so crappy, GM then had to install an air pump - to burn gasoline in the exhaust because gasoline was not fully burned in the engine.

The air pump and catalytic converter were to burn gasoline in the exhaust pipe when engine was lower performance and poor gas mileage; therefore polluted more.

Again, the catalytic converter has been improved since then to also process NOx and CO emissions. But its original and primary purpose is to burn hydrocarbons - as was its purpose in the 1930s when first installed at GM painting facilities by Airco.

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. Break apart NOx into nitrogen and oxygen. Get no pollution and get more energy. An engine that outputs high NOx (pollutants) is using gasoline energy to instead make an air pollutant. To get better gas mileage and reduce pollution (less NOx), all cars now have the EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) valve.

Americans were leading the world with 'less polluting' technologies in the 1960s. However the chief engineer for Chrysler's CAP program was (by 1970) banned from SAE meeting because top bean counter executives did not want those lower polluting technologies known. When top executive testified before the Senate (about 1969) that the 1975 standards could not be met, Chrysler’s CAP program was already testing engines in CA that met 1974 standards. Top auto executives don't like to be exposed by Senators as liars.

Today, many still believe those myths of bean counter auto executives. They claim more pollution control means less gasoline mileage. As demonstrated by the science in that above history, those who make a higher mileage engine also reduce pollution.

When the US auto industry in the late 1970s virtually did everything they could to deny pollution reduction, then patriots appeared in places like Bosch. Bosch developed the oxygen sensor now found in all cars. What does it do? Reduced pollution and increases gasoline mileage by reporting oxygen levels in the exhaust. A device that maximizes gas mileage also reduces pollution. But this has always been the secret to superior products that also have higher Hp/liter. Innovation. It means the top management must be car guys; not bean counters.

One reason Hybrids pollute less is that huge battery pack has the power to heat the Cat, getting it working quickly.

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. Hybrids pollute less and obtain better mileage because they adapt better to changing loads. To solve this 'load' problem, GMs solution was bigger engines. Hybrids do as diesel electric locomotives were doing in the 1930s. The concept was that well understood. Adapt better to changing load conditions and the engine can be smaller. A one liter Hybrid is now doing what a 2.2 liter (or in GM's case, a 3.0 liter) conventional engine does. And this is expected only to get better since the current hybrids are currently so crude.

Why are GMs costs so high? They stifled a 1972 technology even 25 years later - the 70 Hp/liter engine. That technology has since been replaced by Hybrids. Government gave GM (no strings attached) $100 million to develop a hybrid. But GM management is so anti-American, anti-innovation, and anti-humanity as to still not have a hybrid ready for production. $100 million dollars - no strings attached - and they still cannot innovate? Of course not. Look at where GM top executives come from. Finance Department. They even promoted the bean counter who operation was losing money every year - Rick Wagoner - over the engineer whose operation was delivering profits every year - Louis Hughes. A company so much its own enemy that GM cannot even see the difference between a good and bad executive? That has been GMs problems ever since the accountants took the company away from car guys about 1968 and after.

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