I think a sticky reminder would probably help.
GM goes Rice
- Thread starter 427Z06
- Start date
- Status
my 83 suburban is made in mexico for some reason...
but my 87 k5 blazer is made in canada.
You go figure.
BTW, not for nothing, the vette is a piece of art. I dont think anyone in the world would deny that the vette is probably dollar per dollar, the best value in a performance vehicle.
But, this whole blaming "Nippon" as someone referred to them- Put blatently, they beat us for a good number of years at our own game.
America is free competition- So, they brought in a competing product. The Big "3" could have fought back, but was too complacent in their dominance of the market. There was no "forcing" of america to go to mexico. They looked at their numbers, and saw that they could increase their profits by moving to Mexico. Say "bye bye" to thousands of american laborers.
Then, they lobbied and used political connections to change tax laws- you may or may not be familiar with the trade deficit, and americas global strategy of adding more taxes to imported products. The adding of taxes is used to try and even the playing field for american companies, which is totally non free market trading.
This is exactly the reason behind american built "japanese" cars- built by americans, designed by the japanese, for the american market- its a importation tax loop hole. (domestically built vehicles, regardless of nameplate, dont have to pay importation taxes).
So why do we get some cars built in mexico and canada? Easy, NAFTA. (north american free trade agreement). This is why there were all those protests back in the mid 90's.
The competitive nature of the japanese companies make them strive to build better products- only recently (past 10 years) have american companies done the same.
A little tidbit for you folks who may be curious, and think I may be pulling this out of my a-hole.
"About the time of the Korean War, Dr Edward Demmings, a nerdy and bespectacled professor from MIT was on a campaign to alert the GM’s of the day to pay attention to quality of their products and services or risk the loss of market share to competitors who would. But the over confident self- satisfied management-with cash balances bloated from being the only game in town- viewed such advice as rabble from the left and closeted academics who did not understand cash flow and profits and assumed it so much nonsense - not worth listening too.
But, the struggling Japanese industrialists listened and made business history in short time. What was this way-out bit of business advice considered by some to be on par with crackpot medicines? Just a list of fourteen suggestions aimed at fostering customer satisfaction and loyalty. The “Sharp’s, Panasonics, and Toyota’s, of Japan Inc., honed their business strategies and management philosophy around these famous fourteen points of Professor Demmings. He became their hero, while American industry acted like headwaiters in some of Manhattan's elitist eateries.
Demmings basic message was that the cause of inefficiency and poor quality is management, not employees, and it is management's responsibility to correct the problems to achieve desired results."
The japanese "named" companies (hardly any company is american/japanese/european, they all have alliances nowadays. Even mazda/ford, GM/toyota) are class leading in fuel efficiency and hybrid technology. Where's the american hybrid vehicles? The GM electric car from the 80's?
---
As to why america has so few new cars with turbo, it has to do with passing emissions. its also the same reason that you dont have a turbo charged 4 cylinder diesel f150 that can get 30mpg. Or a jeep Wranger that could get 35mpg, or a diesel Civic, avaliable in europe, that gets 56.5mpg. Or getting the Skyline GT-R.
the 56.5mpg is right on par with the honda insight. Imagine, pairing a diesel motor with hybrid. I imagine it to be over 85mpg.
but my 87 k5 blazer is made in canada.
You go figure.
BTW, not for nothing, the vette is a piece of art. I dont think anyone in the world would deny that the vette is probably dollar per dollar, the best value in a performance vehicle.
But, this whole blaming "Nippon" as someone referred to them- Put blatently, they beat us for a good number of years at our own game.
America is free competition- So, they brought in a competing product. The Big "3" could have fought back, but was too complacent in their dominance of the market. There was no "forcing" of america to go to mexico. They looked at their numbers, and saw that they could increase their profits by moving to Mexico. Say "bye bye" to thousands of american laborers.
Then, they lobbied and used political connections to change tax laws- you may or may not be familiar with the trade deficit, and americas global strategy of adding more taxes to imported products. The adding of taxes is used to try and even the playing field for american companies, which is totally non free market trading.
This is exactly the reason behind american built "japanese" cars- built by americans, designed by the japanese, for the american market- its a importation tax loop hole. (domestically built vehicles, regardless of nameplate, dont have to pay importation taxes).
So why do we get some cars built in mexico and canada? Easy, NAFTA. (north american free trade agreement). This is why there were all those protests back in the mid 90's.
The competitive nature of the japanese companies make them strive to build better products- only recently (past 10 years) have american companies done the same.
A little tidbit for you folks who may be curious, and think I may be pulling this out of my a-hole.
"About the time of the Korean War, Dr Edward Demmings, a nerdy and bespectacled professor from MIT was on a campaign to alert the GM’s of the day to pay attention to quality of their products and services or risk the loss of market share to competitors who would. But the over confident self- satisfied management-with cash balances bloated from being the only game in town- viewed such advice as rabble from the left and closeted academics who did not understand cash flow and profits and assumed it so much nonsense - not worth listening too.
But, the struggling Japanese industrialists listened and made business history in short time. What was this way-out bit of business advice considered by some to be on par with crackpot medicines? Just a list of fourteen suggestions aimed at fostering customer satisfaction and loyalty. The “Sharp’s, Panasonics, and Toyota’s, of Japan Inc., honed their business strategies and management philosophy around these famous fourteen points of Professor Demmings. He became their hero, while American industry acted like headwaiters in some of Manhattan's elitist eateries.
Demmings basic message was that the cause of inefficiency and poor quality is management, not employees, and it is management's responsibility to correct the problems to achieve desired results."
The japanese "named" companies (hardly any company is american/japanese/european, they all have alliances nowadays. Even mazda/ford, GM/toyota) are class leading in fuel efficiency and hybrid technology. Where's the american hybrid vehicles? The GM electric car from the 80's?
---
As to why america has so few new cars with turbo, it has to do with passing emissions. its also the same reason that you dont have a turbo charged 4 cylinder diesel f150 that can get 30mpg. Or a jeep Wranger that could get 35mpg, or a diesel Civic, avaliable in europe, that gets 56.5mpg. Or getting the Skyline GT-R.
the 56.5mpg is right on par with the honda insight. Imagine, pairing a diesel motor with hybrid. I imagine it to be over 85mpg.
What does a turbo do to emissions, and why can't it be made to pass emissions tests by careful tuning and engineering?
Or maybe the EPA should get its head out of its *** and realize that throwing away energy in the form of heat is not a good thing?
Or maybe the EPA should get its head out of its *** and realize that throwing away energy in the form of heat is not a good thing?
I think the real reason we don't have more turbo engines here is that lack of oil change maintenance will kill them much faster than a non-turbo engine.
JHZR2
Staff member
I believe it has to do with the fact that:
(a) you need to burn fuel to make power, regardless of turbo, car type, engine type, engine eize, etc.
and
(b) cars' emissions status is dependent upon the engine size... At least the NJ dyno tests are... It looks at car type, engine size, and age to determine what the emissions profile should be.
Obviously if youre pulling 300 hp out of 2L instead of 132 hp from the same displacement, there is a large 'tonnage' difference in output.
Heck, lets not forget that a Subaru STi making 300HP on a racetrack puts out for all intents and purposes the same emissions as an F250 making 300HP towing a trailer. the use profile may be way different, but for that instant in time, the amount is the same.
EMissions is an issue... a high power performance car can be mae to meet CAFE, but as far as tonnage goes... maybe not.
JMH
I agree that more power usually mean more emissions, but I was talking about using turbochargers to increase the thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine. With a naturally aspirated motor, all the exhaust heat and velocity are wasted, and actually take power to be pushed out. With a turbo, you're getting some of the energy back out of the exhaust. If GM can make a 505HP 427 pass emissions, they can make a 3L turbo pass too.
GM does...well..close, anyway..as of the 2006 model year the Saab 93 has an available 2.8L turbocharged V6. Apparently it passes emissions, since they're selling them here in the USA.
I think the key is to run a larger tubocharger on 2WD models that actually get roller emissions. After all, if you don't end up in boost at 3000 rpm, you're an N/A car as far as that test goes.
My car just gets the plain idle/rev sniff test since it's AWD- though having a car with very few built ensures that i get to fight them about getting on the rollers. Last time I made the guy get down on the ground and look under the car.
And you're right, obviously you're going to use a similar amount of fuel for a similar amount of power, however the difference is that static displacement always uses that fuel, whereas dynamic displacment (forced induction) definitely uses & produces less in terms of emissions, outside of a racetrack.
My car just gets the plain idle/rev sniff test since it's AWD- though having a car with very few built ensures that i get to fight them about getting on the rollers. Last time I made the guy get down on the ground and look under the car.
And you're right, obviously you're going to use a similar amount of fuel for a similar amount of power, however the difference is that static displacement always uses that fuel, whereas dynamic displacment (forced induction) definitely uses & produces less in terms of emissions, outside of a racetrack.
Last I knew, Larry The Cable Guy drove a lifted Dodge Ram.
Other than that, this thread is stupid.
Other than that, this thread is stupid.
This thread is all over the place... I thought it was good that GM (even tho I think they are the G Bush of the auto world)did a good thing building a good block and leading everyone by the hand to further mods. Wish I had had a handbook when I decided to take my 2L Audi to 300hp per L. Rice, spice or dice, anyone who does an engineering guide complete with making the very expensive side trips for you deserves applause. On the domestic side I am a Ford guy all the way, but this is admirable. And you will find out how valuable if you ever venture 'where no man has gone b4'. I have been very impressed with this forum and the honest advice and deep thought that seems to go into most replys, but this one reminds me of Audi World.
Rod
Rod
Since I hear that the next gen Cobalt SSes will be turbo (a la Solstice GXP), I really do hope that GM engineered/built this Ecotec's block/bottom end very strong. It is much easier to find limitless boost with a turbo than with a supercharger, and you will have every kid buying one of these trying to see how big a turbo they can bolt on, and how much boost they can push!
No manufacturer except maybe Toyota with the supra block has ever made a block that will do 5hp per CI without a lot of work. I run 6hp per CI and had to cut billet mains, do a block girdle, and run a dry sump to keep it together for track.
For drag racing which isnt that hard on block, or a dyno run they will stay together at that level, but only for a short period of time. Pro compact car racers do it all right, but kids just blow em up. Nothing GM does will take it beyond the 3-4 hp level without the proper work. It is just too expoensive to build it in. At least thats my opinion. If the engine was made to be a 600hp 4 banger for the corvette (and what a sweet car that would be) then they may spend the 20k on bottom end and internals, but not for the run of mill Chebby.
Rod
For drag racing which isnt that hard on block, or a dyno run they will stay together at that level, but only for a short period of time. Pro compact car racers do it all right, but kids just blow em up. Nothing GM does will take it beyond the 3-4 hp level without the proper work. It is just too expoensive to build it in. At least thats my opinion. If the engine was made to be a 600hp 4 banger for the corvette (and what a sweet car that would be) then they may spend the 20k on bottom end and internals, but not for the run of mill Chebby.
Rod
S4audinut, that's because hp/L or hp/ci is not much more than a marketing ploy. Not that it's not cool to see a motor that makes L, but hp/L isn't nearly as significant as the power:weight ratio of the engine or car.
Sure, a 600hp turbo 4 cylinder would be cool, but a 600hp LS7 would be much easier, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were cheaper and lighter too.
Sure, a 600hp turbo 4 cylinder would be cool, but a 600hp LS7 would be much easier, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were cheaper and lighter too.
As a wise man once said, "There are no displacement classes on the street."
And with that wisdom, this thread should end.
AMEN.
Hey boys, that was before turbo's.
I did an 1100whp 427 alum block (Fontana) twin turbo small block Ford, so I know of what you speak - for drag racing. But I am currently running the car around a track and turn both left and right, so your wisdom doesnt hold in this case. I run off and leave Vipers and C-vettes, 600 AWD hp is something not to mess with on a track. I am not a street racer.
Wisdom changes with venue a wise man said - me.
Rod
I did an 1100whp 427 alum block (Fontana) twin turbo small block Ford, so I know of what you speak - for drag racing. But I am currently running the car around a track and turn both left and right, so your wisdom doesnt hold in this case. I run off and leave Vipers and C-vettes, 600 AWD hp is something not to mess with on a track. I am not a street racer.
Wisdom changes with venue a wise man said - me.
Rod
"S4audinut, that's because hp/L or hp/ci is not much more than a marketing ploy. Not that it's not cool to see a motor that makes L, but hp/L isn't nearly as significant as the power:weight ratio of the engine or car.
Sure, a 600hp turbo 4 cylinder would be cool, but a 600hp LS7 would be much easier, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were cheaper and lighter too. "
I can see your point, but in my car the power/weight is 1/4.5 at crank and 1/5.35 at wheels which isnt bad for any car
Also it is AWD with front/center and rear diffs w/center torsen and F/R LSD's. So not only does it have great PW ratio it hooks up the tires, and this is from a dyno and not marketing. As far as cheaper you are probably right, but not by a lot. A chebby made to last will also have the bottom perfectly squared, billet caps, tied to a very stiff girdle and a dry sump, at least to play on the level I am talking about. As far as lighter, I beleive you may be dreaming unless you are talking about a special all aluminum casting with sleeve inserts and then the cheaper go's out the door. My experience is when you do one to last, i.e. endurance specs, the cost runs about the same for any of them. I know guys who are taking worked Supra blocks and getting 1400whp from them, stock blocks at over 950whp and these are engines which last on a drag strip, but I dont think would hold up on a road track at over 700 hp. Iknow where the Merkin iorn attitude comes from because I once had it, but times change and 4 banger FWD cars are running 7 sec qtrs now. So tick tock - time passes.
Rod
Sure, a 600hp turbo 4 cylinder would be cool, but a 600hp LS7 would be much easier, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were cheaper and lighter too. "
I can see your point, but in my car the power/weight is 1/4.5 at crank and 1/5.35 at wheels which isnt bad for any car
Rod
The LS7 is hand built. It makes 500hp from the factory and is an intake, exhaust, and cams away from a daily driveable 600 crank horsepower. As much as I like the SRT4 and Cobalt SS, there isn't a 4 cylinder on the market that could handle daily driving with 600hp at the crank, and I don't believe for a second that there's a market for a 600hp factory turbo 4 cylinder or that it would weigh much less or be cheaper than an LS7 (which is sold as a crate motor for a little under $15k).
Since you like to use your car as an example (2.7T S4 right?), according to this, the engine in your car weighs 440lbs, and the car weighs about 3600lbs from the factory.
The LS7 weighs 458lbs, makes twice as much power as the engine in your car from the factory, and comes in a car weighing around 3100lbs.
Did the bigger turbos, intercooler(s), etc. you added to your car to make 600hp add 18lbs? Do you think your engine is more stressed than a LS7 would be making the same power?
If you answered yes to either of the above questions, that's exactly my point.
Hp/L has nothing to do with performance. If anything, a motor with a lower specific output will generally last longer (and if NA, have a broader powerband) than a smaller engine making the same power. If the car-buying public were more knowlegable, companies would be advertising the power/weight ratios of their engines and not the specific output. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not knocking people for wanting the most power out of whatever car they have, or anything like that. Touting specific output as if a higher specific output somehow makes a car faster is a waste of time and just plain dumb.
'Since you like to use your car as an example (2.7T S4 right?), according to this, the engine in your car weighs 440lbs, and the car weighs about 3600lbs from the factory.'
My car is a 1.8t 4 cylinder. So given your assumption I understand your point. Also these #'s are with a relatively small GT30R turbo, the GT35R is 720hp and the GT40R is good to 840hp, the block is built to handle any of these but I want streetability and still good power, very driveable until power hits. I used my engine because I know it, I can quote up to 1000hp on a 2,2L 5 cylinder.
Rod
My car is a 1.8t 4 cylinder. So given your assumption I understand your point. Also these #'s are with a relatively small GT30R turbo, the GT35R is 720hp and the GT40R is good to 840hp, the block is built to handle any of these but I want streetability and still good power, very driveable until power hits. I used my engine because I know it, I can quote up to 1000hp on a 2,2L 5 cylinder.
Rod
- Status
Similar threads
