Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

However, [tw] offered up as proof the magic 70 hp/liter as evidence of higher efficiency, better mileage and longevity which is utter bullshit. ...
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 with NOx.

Listed are things required in the standard 70 Horsepower per liter engine. However, somehow xoxoxoBruce feels GM products still use carburetors?

Fuel injected engines come with and without specific features. Those (in the same fuel injected category) which include these features last longer, get better gas mileage, pollute less, and cost less to build. Why was carbureted engine technology replaced by fuel injected technology? Because the engine lasts longer, gets better gas mileage, pollutes less, and costs less to build. Or in GM's case, because it was all but required by the EPA.

Curiously, the same technolgy GM engine either compromises or forget to include standard features of current technology fuel injected products. As a result, their engines must have two extra pistons which means costs more to build, vibrates more, fails more often, burns more gas, etc.

Compare current GM technology to that of Daimler Benz. For example, the Chrysler 300 can be purchased with a 2.7 or 3.5 liter V-6. They output 70.4 and 71.4 Hp per liter. Why? Daimler uses world standard (post 1992) technology that GM could have sold in even 1975. (Chrysler is a Daimler Benz company).

Let see what GM sells. The base engine of the Buick Lacrosse (called Allure in Canada because LaCrosse had too sexy undertones for GM Canada) has a 3.8 liter V-6 outputting 52.6 Hp/liter. The Chevy Impala uses 3.4 l and 3.8 liter V-6s that do 52.9 and 52.6 Hp/liter. Spend more for the Pontiac Bonneville and get … 53.9 from the V-6 or 59.7 from the V-8. Spend more and get lower performance? Where is te 70 Hp/liter technology? GM 2005 technology is still even using push rods. No wonder Ward's Automotive said that GM could not even give new 3.8 liter engines to Honda or Toyota - for free. What is 2005 technology to GM is obsolete pre-1992 technology to the competition.

Why would anyone buy those lower performance products? No wonder a GM car costs more to build than a Mercedes product. Base price of the Chrysler 300 - $23,370. Of the Buick Lacross: $22,835. The Pontiac Bonnevile - $27,965. As industry insiders note, a Mercedes (Chrysler) product selling for same price also has a higher profit margin as well as the superior engine. Why? Which vehicle has the higher HP/liter? Notice again, Hp/liter means the superior product.

Ahh... but Hp/liter means nothing to some here. They know more than industry professionals. Then explain why GM cars make more noise, their larger engines wear faster, and have higher failure rates? Why do cars with lower HP/liter come from the auto company that has no profits and is losing market share every quarter? One need only look at that so-called *useless* number to see why GM lost $1 billion last quarter. Why they were literally giving away products with 0% interest sales incentives just to maintain market share.

Consumer Reports April issue lists their Quick Picks. For high ratings in all areas, not one GM product with their low performance engines is listed. Vehicles with 70 Hp/liter engines dominate the list in every category. For those who consider fuel economy important, one GM product made the list: Pontiac Vibe. The Pontiac Vibe comes with a 68, 72, or 94 Hp/liter engine. And who makes it? Toyota. To make the list - to have a 70 Hp/liter engine - GM sells a Toyota product. (yes GM does sell a few 70 Hp/liter products if you are willing to spend premium dollars).

For those who consider reliability important, again, 70 Hp/liter products dominate the list. A lowest performer in that high reliablity group being the Subaru Forester at 66 Hp/liter.

Other Quick Pick categories include safety and owner satisfaction. Every category is dominated by vehicles that do about or more than 70 Hp/liter. What is missing in every category? Low performance GM products that do only 52 or 60 Hp/per liter. Of course. Hp/liter strongly indicates product quality.

Numbers mean nothing because xoxoxoBruce and russotto are clearly more knowledgeable? They need not post numbers. They need only say that tw is wrong. That alone proves they must be right? Heaven forbid should they post any numbers. Why post supporting facts? Only those who must be always wrong would provide numbers and facts.

Let’s look at the list of “Used Cars to Avoid” for Chevy. Chevy Astro 1997-2003 never did more than 44 Hp/liter. 2002 Avalanche: 54 Hp/l. Camaro in ’97, ’99, & ’01: 50, 52, 53, 54 & 57 Hp/l engines (classic of what GM hypes as a high performance vehicle). Cavalier ’99-’00 & ’03: 52 & 63 Hp/l. Impala ’01: 53 Hp/l. Lumina ’97 & ’99: 52, 63 Hp/l (Chevy dropped the 63 Hp/l engine after 1997). Malibu ’97-’00: 48, 50, 62 Hp/l. Monte Carlo ’99: 52 & 53 Hp/l. Also listed as Used Cars to Avoid: Pontiac Bonneville ’98-’02: 54 Hp/l. Grand Am ’97-’01: 50, 51, 62 Hp/l. Grand Prix ’97-’98: 51 & 52 Hp/l.

That 62 Hp/l engine? Only available in 4 cylinder versions. Even GM could not sell a 4 cylinder engine that was lower performance. At least GM engineers got to do some designing.

Yes, some 70 Hp/liter models do exist in that long list of Used Cars to Avoid. But the list is dominated by vehicles with low performance engines. Again performance (horsepower per liter) suggests which vehicles will last longer, get better gas mileage, pollute less, and cost less to build.

Which should we believe? Two posters who just know that Hp/liter means nothing – and never post any supporting facts? Clearly they know better only because they say so. Or do we believe industry professionals who discuss the concept at length. John Hutton, chief power train engineer at Ford discusses Hp/liter when he noted how Ford had to do with only 4 liters what their 5 liter engines were doing. Roger Heimback, executive engineer for GMs power train systems group discussed engine development strictly in terms of Hp/liter. Jorg Abthoff noted how Daimler must get 15 to 20 percent more power from their current designs. All talk about Hp/liter.

xoxoxoBruce and russotto know better than these engineers? They say so and that is all one need believe?

GM recorded a $1billion loss in the past 3 months. GM cars have long been selling at pathetically low profit margins - low performance SUV covering up losses in their automobile line. One need not wait for spread sheets to report the obvious four to ten years later. Long before the spread sheets can measure it, the product oriented numbers have been reporting which companies will be in trouble. Hp/liter is an excellent example of which automobiles cost more to build, are less reliable, burn more gas, and pollute more. One simply does the HP/liter number for GM cars. At 52 Hp/liter, GM products are so pathetic as to clearly explain those $1billion losses.

Which company, with so many low performance products, also would not build a hybrid. Ten years after the US government gave them $100 million to do so, they still don't have one hybrid product. Ever hear the expression "corporate welfare"? Look who the recipient is. Free money and they don't have to build anything. What more do they want from the US government. Protection from the imports? They already got that.

Patriots believe in the free market. Patriots stopped buying Fords when all Ford products were designed in the accounting department. Patriots stopped buying Chryslers in 1979. Therefore Chrysler finally addressed their only problem - top management. Those in 1979 who were so anti-American as to buy Chrysler said, "Don't replace bad management with a guy who has a driver's license." Patriots always buy the best. Patriots believe in free markets. Not the communist propaganda called "Buy American". Patriots who stopped buying Ford and Chrysler products back then saved both companies. It took the threat of bankruptcy to remove the only problems in both Ford and Chrysler. Anti-Americans say "keep making crap" and therefore blindly "Buy American".

What is GM's problem? Their top management. What is the thing that removes bad management? Patriots buy the competition's products. German Chryslers and VWs. Japanese Hondas and Toyotas.

Unfortunately, many still buy GM products. Products so inferior as to require two extra pistons and other expensive hardware. GM will then blame everyone else but top management for their pathetic and grossly expensive products. They will beg you to 'buy American'. A product line that still does not feature 70 Hp/liter engines. They hope you never learn that fact.

The competition uses technologies pioneered in GM 30 years ago. And yet still GM does not install their own technology in every vehicle. Why? One need only read the reasons provided by xoxoxoBruce and russotto. Reasons? What reasons? They just know that Horsepower per liter means nothing. All those numbers and industry professionals be damned.

[Undertoad]

Well done deconstructing, B. Good information.

[Undertoad]

Clearly the very best car in the world is the Subaru Impreza WRX STi, which manages to get 300 HP out of a (turbocharged) 4 cylinder (!) 2450cc engine for 122.4 hp/liter.

[Undertoad]

Never mind, turns out the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo gets 276 hp out of a 2 liter for 138.

[BigV]

I'll see your Subaru and raise you a Mazda RX-8 Wankel--161.5 hp/liter, NON-turbo

Mazda RX-8 Specifications

Engine

1.3L displacement gas engine, 210 hp @ 7200 rpm 164 ft-lbs. @ 5000 rpm, premium unleaded fuel

http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_r...mazda-rx-8.htm

[hot_pastrami]

Do you have an MBA tw? I only ask because it seems to be an MBA-ish trait to latch onto one little "factoid" (70 HP/litre!), which isn't accurate under all circumstances, and parrot it endlessly, as though it's some universal guiding truth. It's more commonly known as "tunnel vision."

As flawed as some of your logic is, you are right about one thing... modern low-end and middle-of-the-road GMs suck. But I'd enjoy the hell out of a Corvette Z06.

[tw]

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

Do you have an MBA tw? I only ask because it seems to be an MBA-ish trait to latch onto one little "factoid" (70 HP/litre!), which isn't accurate under all circumstances, and parrot it endlessly, as though it's some universal guiding truth. It's more commonly known as "tunnel vision."

Horsepower per liter is a trend. A trend that engineers can appreciate and MBAs will routinely ignore. Horsepower per liter is something a spread sheeter would never understand and the myopic would rather deny.

Even GM has pockets of unstifled innovation. A recent Corvette engine did 70 Hp/liter with only two valves per cylinder. But when Hp per liter is applies across the GM product line, it becomes painfully obvious why GM cars cost more to build and why GM has no domestic profits. GM cars must install two extra pistons - and all those other expensive parts such as valves, piston rings, cam and crank lobes, fuel system components, etc to only do same as everyone else. GM products have been so bad for so long as even exposed by one little factoid - Hp/liter.

No, I am not just focusing on Hp per liter to say GM products suck. Only a fool would say that number is complete proof for only one model. Provided is one damning number - historically accurate - that every consumer can calculate. GM products are so bad that even Horsepower per liter for GM vehicles is 20% lower.

When VW went from crap products back to being a profitable company, VW's 'Horsepower per liter' increased to seventy across the product line. VW went from 'bottom of the barrel' reliability to mid level reliability at the same time their products started doing 70 Horsepower per liter. Horsepower per liter indicates that VW was going to be profitable because HP/liter is a typical product oriented indicator that MBA types must ignore.

Thirty years ago, GM could have been doing what is now world standard. GM products are so crappy as to still not do what is world standard. xoxoxoBruce noted other reasons why GM products are such crap. They still sell as 2005 technology engines using push rods. That 3.8 liter engines is so crappy that an editorial in Wards Automotive said GM could not even give it away to Honda or Toyota. Obviously. Ward's Automotive said the 3.8 liter engine uses technology that only a bean counter could love. It is a pathetic 50+ HP per liter engine. Products so pathetic as to even use push rod technology.

GM had the technology long before anyone. But when MBAs get finished instituting cost controls, then product oriented advances get stifled. Obviously GM has no profits. Look at the Hp per liter number. Therein lies the reason why. Innovation from even 30 years ago could not be implemented. Today, even the MBA types can now see what the consumer could have seen ten years ago. GM products have low Horsepower per liter numbers which suggests the entire product line is crap. A number that even demonstrates why GM still has no hybrid vehicles.

[glatt]

As a non-engineer, I am curious about what HP per liter means in the real world. Sure, the engine is more efficient at producing power for it's size, but I think a better measure is how much power is produced per unit of fuel. You can get a lot of extra power out of a small engine by bolting a turbocharger or supercharger on, but then it also uses more gas. Or you can drop a bigger engine into the car and it also use more gas. Either way, you are burning more gas to get more power.

I'm with you on making as efficent an engine as possible. Dual overhead cams with 4 valves per cylinder are better than the old pushrods/rocker arms I had on my first car. Fewer moving parts, less internal friction. Seems to me it should use less fuel to gain extra power. Along the same line of thinking, the Wankel engine seems promising for using less fuel too.

Some technology like superchargers and turbochargers seem to me to use more fuel per unit of HP than without. You are adding moving parts. More friction. More fuel.

Do you have statistics for which engines (not cars) are the most fuel efficient? Does it matter?

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

As a non-engineer, I am curious about what HP per liter means in the real world. Sure, the engine is more efficient at producing power for it's size, but I think a better measure is how much power is produced per unit of fuel. You can get a lot of extra power out of a small engine by bolting a turbocharger or supercharger on, but then it also uses more gas. Or you can drop a bigger engine into the car and it also use more gas. Either way, you are burning more gas to get more power.

The HP per liter number for a fuel injected engine is not a valid for diesel or super charged engines. The latter only forces more fuel into the engine with an obvious increase in HP/liter. But the ballpark measurement among engines of the same technology is Hp per liter. For example, GM makes a supercharged Buick that only does 63 Hp per liter. And yet supercharged engines should average about 100 Hp per liter. The Buick supercharged engine is so low performance that even fuel injected engines are superior. But Buick does not install a supercharger to make a higher performance engine. They install a supercharger so that naive 'feel' they have a high performance engine.

Advanced diesels do something on the order of 40 Hp per liter. But diesels are more fuel efficient, for reasons below. IOW HP per liter performance number is unique within the technology. For normally aspirated engines, the carburetor engine at 35 HP per liter is usually inferior to a fuel injected engine. Ignoring that GMs throttle body fuel injected engine was about the same inferior performance of carbureted engine. GM used throttle body only because a throttle body injector cost less than a carburetor. GM knew their customers would read fuel injected and 'feel' they had a race car. Eventually GM had to relent - let their engineers do what everyone else had. 70 HP per liter engines use sequential fuel injection as was found in pre-WWII German fighter planes.

Does it sound confusing? It should. The problem gets rather more complex as we add new technologies to the brew.

Diesels are more efficient at using fuel for one simple reason. Application of energy to a changing load. Gasoline engines are poor at adapting to changing loads even with more gears in the transmission. We solve this gasoline engine weakness by making bigger gasoline engines. Bigger hypes the emotion. But making an engine that can adapt to changing loads is clearly sexier. And that too is a characteristic of higher HP per liter engines. They tend to adapt better to changing loads which is why higher Hp/liter aspirated engines more often meet EPA mileage numbers.

We put a 250 Horsepower engine in a 3000 pound car. How many Horsepower to move a 60,000 pound truck? It weighs 20 times more so it must need 20 times more horsepower? 5000 Horsepower? Of course not. The truck may have only 400 or 500 horsepower engines. One tenth the horsepower because diesel adapts better to changing loads. Since diesels adapt so much better, then trucks do not use gasoline.

How many Horsepower to maintain a car at 50 MPH? Well it has a 200 Horsepower engine. Therefore it must need at least 120 horsepower to maintain 50? No. Car maintains 50 MPH using 10 or less horsepower. Therein lays the problem. Because cars spend a small amount of time in acceleration and other higher load conditions, we then enlarge the 10 Horsepower engine to 250 Horsepower. Then a car can accelerate in 10 seconds while climbing the high.

The myopic among us still insist we must always output excessive horsepower so that we have this horsepower during rare acceleration times. The myopic demand that an engine's energy output not change so they don't have to downshift to climb a hill.

The car generates massive amounts of energy when it only needs 10 horsepower because sometimes the driver may periodically require hundreds of horsepower. Since gasoline is so cheap, then oversized engines have always been the simple solution. And yes, at $2.00 per gallon, history says the price of gasoline remains cheap. The bigger engine remains a cheap and simple solution.

So now we come to what is currently a crude technology. The Hybrid is about putting only 10 horsepower to the wheels when 10 HP is required. And putting 100 Horsepower to the wheels at rare times when high power is required. Electric motors better adapt to changing loads which is why diesel electric locomotives uses electric motors before WWII and why navy ships use electric motors to drive propellers. The hybrid shuts down its one liter engine when so much energy is not required. The conventional gasoline engines (current normally aspirated, turbo charged, etc technology) will never solve this changing load problem.

Adapting to changing loads has long been a simple solution to adapting more energy productively. But notice how complex even the simple solution is. Reality of numbers complicates things.

And yet the numbers are where innovation and the advancement of mankind come from. HP/liter measures performance only within a specific technology. A number that must be taken within context.

Reducing friction would do little to improve the HP/liter number. But things such as getting more useful energy from each gasoline molecule and adapting better to changing loads does result in higher performance.

Another factor in getting more work from less energy is a concept called thermodynamic efficiency. Currently maybe 10 to 20% of the energy in a gas tank is used. That much energy in the gas tank is wasted. Cars with higher performance numbers - greater Hp per liter - would be closer to the 20% number. Electric fossil fuel and nuclear power plants do maybe 30 to 35% thermodynamic efficiency - nuclear plants tending to be lower. Natural gas turbine plants are claiming numbers approaching 60%. The long term solution to innovation - to making smaller engines that produce more useful energy - is also found in addressing these thermodynamic efficiency problems. An engine lined in ceramics that did not absorb heat from the combustion chamber would mean more energy moves the piston or turbine. Other advanced techniques are studied, tested, and refined. But solutions typically take generations to develop.

Hydrogen fuel cells maybe could put higher fuel energy onto the drive wheels. But then we must look at the larger picture. The manufacturing, storage, and transportation of hydrogen means something like 70 to 90% of the energy is lost. Once we look at the bigger picture, then hydrogen fueled vehicles have ridiculously low thermodynamic efficiencies. Shhh. Don't tell GM executives. They are convinced that hydrogen is the future only because pollution does not exist. Those without dirt under their fingernails have used spread sheet reasoning as if it were science. They saw symptoms and then claimed they are scientifically informed.

Random snapshots of the problem have defined two ways of applying more existing energy to useful work. Adapting more energy only when the load changes. Addressing the thermodynamic efficiency problem. Both require innovation. The Hybrid being a superior and proven solution to adapting to changing load as diesel electric trains have been doing for 60 years. The hybrid then may make the turbine a viable solution. Fundamental engine changes such as (maybe) turbines to increase thermodynamic efficiency.

But for the consumer, there exists the normally aspirated gasoline driven vehicle. Within technology restrictions, the consumer maximizes his fuel economy, pollutes less, and gets a longer life vehicle when he uses newer technologies. Technologies that mean the engine gets higher horsepower per liter. Higher Hp/liter being a symptom of superior technologies. A symptom, meaning to better understand the underlying concepts, one must appreciate the adapting of energy to chaning loads and the thermodynamic efficiency problem.

To get more energy from each gasoline molecule, a normally aspirated engine means the HP/liter number must increase. This is what performance is really about. Those who never learned about cars foolishly believe a low performance but bigger engine is 'high performance'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Well done TW, although I disagree with your take on GM's throttle body injection was about fooling the public.

A carburetor is nothing more than a barely controlled leak and expensive to make with all those little bits and pieces. With the advent of electronic controls made possible by the oxygen sensor it is much cheaper to build a throttle body injection unit that gives you much more control over the fuel flow especially on deceleration where a carb keeps feeding fuel as long as there is air flow.

The real reason they went to throttle body was to save the expense of retooling the intake manifolds, the rest of the plumbing and electronics for port injection. It was all about money.
Even when port injection became standard it was batch with sequential a ways down the road.

Putting a "fuel injection" sticker on the fender is a marketing deal. If they didn't inflate the tires to save air, marketing would say " Now, with new flat tires". Those people don't have a clue.


Engines and motors do work by transforming potential energy into torque.
Gasoline engines produce maximum torque at relatively high RPM.
Diesels engines at relatively low RPM and motors(electric) at no RPM.
Diesels and motors also produce more torque for the potential energy used.

Big trucks use up to 27 forward gears to keep the diesels running at the RPM where the maximum torque is produced for maximum efficiency. It's still not great efficiency but they're doing the best they can with what they got.

Motors have the advantage of maximum torque where it is needed most, which is the initial movement from rest, plus the ability increase the torque by feeding it more energy(electricity) with changing load.

This is why motors have always been the best solution for propulsion but unlike locomotives and ships, automobiles have not been big enough to carry means to supply the power for the motor(s). As generating equipment became more efficient the possibility of onboard generation became a reality. Of course California's zero emission mandate rules out hybrids, but until they make some great advances in battery technology the only thing left is hybrids, so CA better get real.

Hybrids provide their biggest advantage in urban stop and go, where the fossil fuel engine shuts off at stops and the regenerative braking recoups some loss. Driving down the expressway at a steady 50/60 mph won't give the hybrid nearly as much advantage over a fossil fuel engine and certainly not enough to offset the expense of buying and maintenance. That's comparing one model like the Honda with and without hybrid technology.

Oh, and "Performance" is exactly that. What she'll do. Doesn't matter how or why.....it's simply what she'll do. "High Performance" means she's faster. Again, it doesn't matter how or why..."High Performance" means she's faster.

[richlevy]

Well, they have a much bigger messenger to kill, since S&P just downgraded GM and Ford stock to 'junk'.

Right now, Kirk Kerkorian and his company still want to buy GM shares, but that might have more to do with GM's finance arm than the auto manufacturing.

It looks like GM management is running it into the ground. Unfortunately, unlike K-Mart, I don't see how any one person can get in there and fix all of the problems.

[lookout123]

not to nitpick, but this has nothing to do with stock. what was downgraded was the credit rating of each company. similar to your FICO, each entity has a credit rating assigned, based on the books and financial outlook. this credit rating affects only debt (bonds) not equity/ownership (stock).

what that means is that if GM wants to borrow more money, the terms under which they can do so just got a lot worse.

the reason stock prices drop dramatically with this news is that stock price is based on expectation of profit. if GM has to pay significantly higher interest payments on newly issued debt then that will erode profits even further... and people aren't as likely to want to own the stock of a company with downward spiraling profit margin... and the cycle continues.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

not to nitpick, but this has nothing to do with stock. what was downgraded was the credit rating of each company. similar to your FICO, each entity has a credit rating assigned, based on the books and financial outlook. this credit rating affects only debt (bonds) not equity/ownership (stock).

what that means is that if GM wants to borrow more money, the terms under which they can do so just got a lot worse.

the reason stock prices drop dramatically with this news is that stock price is based on expectation of profit. if GM has to pay significantly higher interest payments on newly issued debt then that will erode profits even further... and people aren't as likely to want to own the stock of a company with downward spiraling profit margin... and the cycle continues.

I stand corrected Lookout, it was the credit rating. What this means is that certain institutional investors will have to pull out since they can only own investment grade bonds. GM and Ford were at the lowest investment grade prior to the downgrade.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I stand corrected Lookout, it was the credit rating. What this means is that certain institutional investors will have to pull out since they can only own investment grade bonds. GM and Ford were at the lowest investment grade prior to the downgrade.

What makes this rather confusing is that Ford is still profitable. GM has long been the sicker company with lesser products. Why is Ford getting lumped in with GM? Ford also has product line problems. One was four years of stifled new product developement when Jacque Nasser was running Ford into the ground. But Ford's problems are not as bad as GMs.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Let’s look at the list of “Used Cars to Avoid” for Chevy. Chevy Astro 1997-2003 never did more than 44 Hp/liter. 2002 Avalanche: 54 Hp/l. Camaro in ’97, ’99, & ’01: 50, 52, 53, 54 & 57 Hp/l engines (classic of what GM hypes as a high performance vehicle). Cavalier ’99-’00 & ’03: 52 & 63 Hp/l. Impala ’01: 53 Hp/l. Lumina ’97 & ’99: 52, 63 Hp/l (Chevy dropped the 63 Hp/l engine after 1997). Malibu ’97-’00: 48, 50, 62 Hp/l. Monte Carlo ’99: 52 & 53 Hp/l. Also listed as Used Cars to Avoid: Pontiac Bonneville ’98-’02: 54 Hp/l. Grand Am ’97-’01: 50, 51, 62 Hp/l. Grand Prix ’97-’98: 51 & 52 Hp/l.

Astro 97-03 ~ engine is a problem some years especially 03 but the exhaust and ignition are a problem every year. Also in the later years cooling, fuel, paint/trim/rust, air conditioning and transmission are a problem. But by golly we'll recomend you not by this car because it doesn't put out 70hp/liter.
Right on down the list.......same shit....different car. They all have multiple problems.

John Hutton, chief power train engineer at Ford discusses Hp/liter when he noted how Ford had to do with only 4 liters what their 5 liter engines were doing.

And what did they have to do? Move the damn car! But more than that, move it in a manner buyers in that catagory/price range expect. You know, performance. Hutton was talking about delivering the performance the customer expected...no, demanded, with a 4 liter engine. Why? Don't know. Somebody/something dictated that they would use a 4 liter. Could have been space restrictions or often as not marketing said so. Marketing?? Yes, to differentiate between models(read, price breaks) one of the most popular items is engine size. A $30k model will lose market share to a $20k model from the same manufacturer, with the same size engine, even if it has a lot more goodies.

Patriots believe in the free market. Patriots stopped buying Fords when all Ford products were designed in the accounting department. Patriots stopped buying Chryslers in 1979. Therefore Chrysler finally addressed their only problem - top management. Those in 1979 who were so anti-American as to buy Chrysler said, "Don't replace bad management with a guy who has a driver's license." Patriots always buy the best. Patriots believe in free markets. Not the communist propaganda called "Buy American". Patriots who stopped buying Ford and Chrysler products back then saved both companies. It took the threat of bankruptcy to remove the only problems in both Ford and Chrysler. Anti-Americans say "keep making crap" and therefore blindly "Buy American".

Dear me, I guess you're not a true patriot unless you have a good enough job(or credit) to buy the very best. OK, all you damn poor people...get out of our country...go to Mexico or Canada and don't come back until you've got enough money to be a true patriot. Damn pushrod lovers! :p
sigh TW, right for the wrong reasons....and so emotional, tsk, tsk.