What companies do you like?

[russotto]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
gentlemen, gentlemen! surely we can agree that there are other things worth measuring in a vehicle besides the relative power of its engine. cars must provide power to the wheels but they must also do so much more. they must, for example, stop once in a while. they must turn. and their front passenger space must provide adequate room for oral sex.

This is true, except for the oral sex part. You shouldn't be doing that while driving, and if you're stopped, the bed of a station wagon is a much more appropriate place. Also if you do it in the parking lot of an office park in the front seat, the people on the third floor get to see you. (laughed our asses off, we did).

But for measuring the performance of the engine, hp/L is inappropriate. It simply fails to measure anything of value. If it were possible to build an engine with twice the displacement but the same weight and form factor as another engine with the same power, those engines would have the same performance; the hp/L measure would show the larger-displacement engine as having half the performance. This is silly.

[/b][/quote]

[tw]

Originally posted by russotto
...
But for measuring the performance of the engine, hp/L is inappropriate. It simply fails to measure anything of value. If it were possible to build an engine with twice the displacement but the same weight and form factor as another engine with the same power, those engines would have the same performance; the hp/L measure would show the larger-displacement engine as having half the performance.

Notice a continued denial without a single example, cited trend, engineering principa, or supporting fact. Russotto would have you believe that since a 2 liter engine and a 5 liter engine both output the same horsepower, then both are equal performance. That is silly. The higher performance 2 liter engine also weights less, occupies less space, is more reliable, and is quieter.

Demonstrated perviously was the average performance Acura V-6 compared to a low performance Jeep that required a V-8. Jeep requires two extra pistons, extra valves, cams lobes, rings, fuel injection system, more block and head, bigger body to hold the largers, low performance Jeep engine, heavier suspension, and larger tires - all because Jeep is a low performance vehicle.

Russotto's only example is to compare a Wankel technology engine to an Otto technology engine, cite the different Hp/liter (as it should be), then declare Hp/l as no measure of performance. Why not compare a jet engine to a nuclear power plant? What, other than his opinion, has Russotto provided to disprove the Hp/liter ratio?

Reams of evidence demonstrates that Horsepower per liter is and was used to measure performance. We know that more energy to create sound means less energy for shaft Horsepower. Previous reams of numbers demonstrate that trend. We know that higher performance engines are machined to post-1970 tolerances whereas lower performance engines are machines to pre-1970 tolerances. Again the Horsepower per liter ratio quantifies that fact.

Furthermore we know that car companies run by engineers will increase engine performances. Acura 1999 Hp/liter for same engines: 78/94/-/65/67/70/61/69. Acura 2001 Hp/liter for same engines: 78/94/108/70/81/70/64/69 ('-' that version of engine did not exist in 1999). Acura over two years continues to increase performance as demonstrated by Horsepower per liter. Again Hp/liter ratio quantifies that fact.

Toyota Hp/l for 1999/2001 models: Avalon - 67 up to 70; Camry - 61 & 65 up to 68 & 65; Celica - 67 upgrades to 78 & 100; Corrolla - 67 upgraded to 69. Rav4 - 63 upgraded to 74; Sienna - 65 upped to 70. Again Hp/liter ratio quantifies that fact.

Obviously Hp/Liter measures performance as indicated by the sound, by improved machine tolerance, by the long previous examples of GM vs so many engineer designed cars, AND no by the continuous improvement in performances as demonstrated by Acura and Toyota.

My statements are supported by facts. Horsepower per liters is an accurate measure of engine performance - AND a logical benchmark to determine what companies should earn your praise and ire. Horsepower per liter also is an excellent measure of the good vs. evil automobile manufacturers. Due to their low performance products (and the resulting loss of American jobs), all should put GM on their list of disliked companies. Horsepower per liter suggests who should be earning your approval.

[Scred]

Originally posted by tw
You can tell a low performance engine either by the sound or by the arithmetic.

Sorry, I don't quite follow this one.

I got 18 more horses out of my pea-shooter by putting a dynomax exhaust and a 2 1/2" pipe on my car. in the process, it got loud as shit. so how does a low performance engine equate to noisy? the math got better, but the noise got worse...

how bout a formula 1. pushed one into valley forge convention center 9 years ago. it was damned noisy. painful even. so how does low performance equate to noisy?

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw

Notice a continued denial without a single example, cited trend, engineering principa, or supporting fact. Russotto would have you believe that since a 2 liter engine and a 5 liter engine both output the same horsepower, then both are equal performance. That is silly. The higher performance 2 liter engine also weights less, occupies less space, is more reliable, and is quieter.

FINALLY, FINALLY, you hit on something valid. Yes, IF the 2-liter engine weighs less, it could be said to have higher performance. Weight of the engine has a direct impact on performance of the vehicle it is put in. Displacement doesn't. Volume does, but the relationship isn't nearly as simple as with weight. Reliability and noise are issues separate from performance -- those high perfomance engines in race cars are extremely noisy and very unreliable, for example.

[tw]

Originally posted by Scred

Sorry, I don't quite follow this one.

I got 18 more horses out of my pea-shooter by putting a dynomax exhaust and a 2 1/2" pipe on my car. in the process, it got loud as shit. so how does a low performance engine equate to noisy?

Now take the exhaust systems off of all engines. Now apply different engines to the same open exhaust technologies. Notice which engines make less noise AND have higher performance per liter. Less exhaust noise indicates a higher performance engine.

That even applies on the race courses. They are all loud. But notice which engines have the higher performance. They are the loud engine that makes less noise. Again, noise is a simple benchmark to measure engine performance.

In Indy: which engines are more powerful? Hondas and Mercedes whose engines make less noise. Honda went through some painful development with cast iron engines to learn how to make an Indy engine more powerful - less noise. Once they had used noise to identify energy problems, then they built the same engine in aluminum - and dominated races. Their lower noise engines were estimated to output at least 50 more horsepower.

Isolate exhaust noise so that all other sources of engine noise can be only heard. Which engine makes more noise? One machined to inferior tolerances. The one even with fan belt pulleys so poorly aligned that the engine also eats fan belts in less than 100,000 miles. (BTW it is only just recently that even GM cars would get more than 40,000 on belts whereas Hondas and Toyotas did it routinely in the 1970s). Again, more noise indicates a lower technology engine.

Who makes what engines? Well if GM wanted you to know, then they would put both Hp and liters on the new car sticker. Instead you must go to April Consumer Reports. Once they all provided that information. But since GM is a classic example of what all patriotic Americans should dislike ... well the next post also proves Horsepower per liter indicates more than just engine performance.


[Edited by tw on 05-11-2001 at 01:56 PM]

[tw]

General Motors chased Ralph Nader with private detectives and hookers AND admitted same in an apology before the US Congress because GM has a history of stifling innovation - as Nader demonstrated in "Unsafe at Any Speed". GM chose to lower all engine performance and decrease gasoline mileage by about 1/2 rather than make cars that polluted less. They continued this throughout the early 1970s by, for example, getting a myopic public to believe all those hoses under the hood were anti-pollution components and blaming government for its lowered performance engines.

IOW GM routinely stifled innovation which only lowered the American standard of living, decreased wealth, and destroyed jobs while demanding anti-Free Market concepts such as tarriffs and import restrictions. GM possessed technologies to dominate the world markets on every continent. But instead GM used MBA school philosophies to downsize and to blame everyone else - the Europeans, Japan, government regulation, the unions, tax structure, the American education system. Even Hp per liter demonstrates this trend.

From Popular Science of Mar 1990 page 82:
""General Motors, which demonstrated the benefits of variable valve timing 15 years ago [1975], has yet to commit a system to production ... "We were getting about 50 Horsepower per liter of displacement with pushrods," says Rgoer Heimbuch, executive engineer for power train systems at GM. "Then 60 Horsepower per liter with overhead cams, seventy to seventy-five Hp per liter with four valve per cylinder, and 85 to 90 Hp per liter with tuned port induction. Then you add variable valve timing, and you can push to 100 horsepower per liter or so." He adds that the payoff is being able to make the engine, transmission, and structure smaller to improve the car's efficiency.""


1) GM had technology in 1970 so that 4 cylinder engines could match the horsepower of GM's 1960 technology V-8s. Why did they not use the technology to dominate world markets? It was a time period when all R&D was stifled by MBA cost control mentalities. The last GM corporate engineers - Estes, Cole, and DeLorean - were gone. With only MBAs management, GM made inferior products AND then blamed everyone else. What was Ken Starr's job before he was hired to chase Clinton's penis? He removed all documentation from GM engineers files so that GM could claim they knew nothing about Chevy Malibu passengers who burned to death - in 1990. That is the "Mark of Excellence"? GM is a classic example of companies you strongly dislike as indicated by the stifled higher performance technolgoy.

2) Obviously the executive engineer for power-train system must not know engineering since Russotto tells us, "Horsepower per liter doesn't measure anything particularly interesting in terms of performance." This engineer also says higher HP/l results in an "engine, transmission, and structure smaller to improve the car's efficiency" whereas Russotto tells us this this higher performance does not signficantly reduce engine size.

I saved this damning quote since I was interested in seeing how far Russotto would take his claims in contrast to so much contrary information. Hp per liter does measure performance. Even engine designers, directly quoted here, say so.

3) GM chased Nader with hookers, stifled pollution control technologies, decrease gas mileage so grossly that America was easy victims to both gas shortages, and made products so inferior as to not be exportable. In short, GM did everything it could to enrich their top management while destroying American jobs and exportable products. Horsepower per liter is just another numerical example of why GM cars are not exportable, why they cost more to build, why they are less reliable, and why this is a company that every reader should strongly dislike. Horsepower per liter not only quantifies performance, but it also suggest which companies make the most anti-American and anti-humanity products.

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw

Now take the exhaust systems off of all engines. Now apply different engines to the same open exhaust technologies. Notice which engines make less noise AND have higher performance per liter. Less exhaust noise indicates a higher performance engine.

Nope, it ain't that simple. Removing the exhaust system changes the way the engine works. Not just the amount of restriction (which leads to backpressure), but the geometry of the system. Taking it off leads to a wholly invalid measurement. Not to mention a very loud car.

[elSicomoro]

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are the opinions of Sycamore and may not necessarily represent the situation as a whole.

But now that I am officially off their payroll...I AM FREE FROM CVS!!! WHOOHOO!!!

I worked for CVS from early December until this past Friday. To be honest, when I took the job, I was not overly thrilled about going back into retail. But I was willing to give it a good shot and try my best.

But in a nutshell...I feel that CVS is trying to extract an unreasonable amount of work from its managers. Furthermore, some folks in the marketing department came up with the Extracare Card, similar to the SuperFresh or ShopRite card. And they came up with a great way to get people to sign up for it--taking away sale prices unless you have the card.

JCPenney has had problems with Eckerd. Rite Aid has been going through its own issues. Drug Emporium has also floundered. Which leaves two big chains...at least in this area: CVS and Walgreens. Walgreens is king in the midwest, while CVS has a hold on the East Coast. CVS has started pushing out west, while Walgreens has started popping up here and in Baltimore. However, if CVS continues to treat its employees the way it does, the quality of service will fall as they won't be able to attract quality employees.

I only wish there was a Walgreens closer to me other than Frankford Terminal. And while I like the selection at most CVS stores, it's hard to get help when there are no other people in the store other than one cashier and a manager...and you have 95 million things that are supposed to be done.

There...now I feel better. :-)

[Edited by sycamore on 06-10-2001 at 01:32 AM]

[russotto]

Originally posted by sycamore

But in a nutshell...I feel that CVS is trying to extract an unreasonable amount of work from its managers. Furthermore, some folks in the marketing department came up with the Extracare Card, similar to the SuperFresh or ShopRite card. And they came up with a great way to get people to sign up for it--taking away sale prices unless you have the card.

[Edited by sycamore on 06-10-2001 at 01:32 AM]

I stopped shopping at Giant precisely because they instituted the Giant Supercard. Now I use Genaurdis, which unfortunately is likely to introduce such a card because Safeway has one. Giant was much cheaper, but when they brought in the card they jacked up all the prices to Genaurdis levels and let the card get you a discount partway back to the older prices.

[elSicomoro]

I'm assuming this is the Giant here in Pennsylvania, and not Super G, which is known as Giant in the Washington/Baltimore market, right?

Safeway's prices were a tad high when I shopped at their stores in DC and MD. The card was really just an excuse. Super Fresh seems to be the same way, as I tend to find the best prices at Acme. Shop-Rite is actually not bad, and the card makes prices even lower.

I'm not sure where CVS is headed with the ExtraCare Card. To me, it's just another damned card or keychain tag. I'm not against marketing practices, but are we safe from the clutches of research anymore?

(On a side note, one thing I DO like about the Super Fresh at Franklin Mills is the self-checkout lane. Very cool.)

[russotto]

Originally posted by sycamore
I'm assuming this is the Giant here in Pennsylvania, and not Super G, which is known as Giant in the Washington/Baltimore market, right?

Yes, though they are owned by the same (Dutch, IIRC) mega-conglomerate now. Thus Super G also has a card. Super G was always a premium store, though, on par with Genaurdis or Safeway.

[elSicomoro]

[quote]Originally posted by russotto

Yes, though they are owned by the same (Dutch, IIRC) mega-conglomerate now. Thus Super G also has a card. Super G was always a premium store, though, on par with Genaurdis or Safeway.

Really? I thought Super G was owned by a Quebec company. I haven't been in Washington or Baltimore since last September, but at the time I left, Giant there was not yet using a card.

Although, if Genuardi's starts using the Safeway card, I could always put that back to use. ;-)

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by sycamore on 6/10/01
Really? I thought Super G was owned by a Quebec company. I haven't been in Washington or Baltimore since last September, but at the time I left, Giant there was not yet using a card.

Although, if Genuardi's starts using the Safeway card, I could always put that back to use. ;-)

I only happened to look this post up b/c I was just looking back at what I was posting at this time last year.

But how prophetic. I DO use my Safeway Club card when I shop at Genuardi's now. Any time I use it, the checkers get all wide-eyed and shit..."Oh wow! So that's a Safeway Club card!" What the hell? It's just a damned card.

[LordSludge]

Heh -- what is all this about quieter engines being higher performance??? Too funny...

[tw]

Originally Posted by LordSludge

Heh -- what is all this about quieter engines being higher performance??? Too funny...

Amazing how many just know without first learning numbers. Higher performance engines are the quieter ones. This demonstrated in places such as Indy and Formula One racing.

In many preceeding posts in this thread and in previous threads, some here just absolutely denied that Horsepower per Liter (HP/liter) was a relevant engineering concept. Yes, many just know without first learning facts. This from the Cover Story for this year's Philadelphia Auto Show (www.phillyautoshow.com) entitled "A Big Story on the Show Floor"

... what Honda calls i-VTEC, a combination of VTC and VTEC. Add a six speed manual transmission with limited slip differential, and you have what is basically a sporty version of an economy car; it tops 20 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway, but it also revs to 8,000 rpm and spins nearly 200 horsepower out of just 2.0 liters.

The magic figure of 100 hp/liter used to be an unattainable goal engineers dreamed about. That standard has now been approached by several engines and breached by one or two - and they are installed in compact cars, not specialty racers.

When I started driving, most everyone drove 300 cu inch or larger engines. These engines produced about 140 to 180 horsepower. Today we call that 5.0 or 5.7 liters. Today there is little reason for any passenger vehicle to have more than 3.0 liters. Just another reason why performance - Horsepower per liter - is an important number to those who design - where the real beauty of a car resides.

There are bean counters - those trained in communist concepts - who stifle. Then there are patriots - the product people - those who promote innovation. Bean counters will look at shiny paint to see a pretty car. Product people will look at the numbers and what is inside to really appreciate what is beautiful - and what makes America great: innovation.