Nationalizing the Domestic auto makers?

On 2008-11-19, Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
> 223rem wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > 223rem wrote:
>> > > Eeyore > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > The best car 'GM' makes is a Saab.http://www.jsonline.com/business/29181064.html
>> >
>> > > You sound like Dave with his Malibu obsession. A Saab aint no BMW or
>> > > Audi. Give it a rest.
>> >
>> > They're better. As a 'real' everyday car. Tunable to 400 bhp no > problem.http://www.abbottracing.com/
>>
>> 400hp on a front wheel drive is idiotic
>
> Tried driving one ?

It's called basic physics, that's why it's idiotic.

Brent P wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> >>
> >> > It seems the latest Corvette is a fraction of a second quicker than an old Evo but needs
> >> > a SEVEN litre engine to do it instead of a TWO litre.
> >>
> >> Put a supercharger on the vette if you want to make displacement
> >> comparisons. Until then your nonsense boils down to being opposed to the
> >> statement: "There's no replacement for displacement"
> >
> > Then it's an even more ridiculous comparison.
>
> Why? You take a tuners mitsu and compare to it factory vette. Apples and
> oranges. How about you take a tuner's vette instead? Nahh... because
> that would show that you're full of shiat.

And you compare a SEVEN litre engine with a TWO litre one.

Only in America !

Graham

Brent P wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> >> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> oh, yeah, almost forgot - doesn't Range Rover use a pushrod (gasp!)
> >> >> *BUICK* (double gasp!) engine? You know, Buick? A division of the same
> >> >> company that makes the Corvette? The one with the engine you were
> >> >> saying sucks? The one that actually shares a lot of features and
> >> >> technology with the old Buick lump? Lord, yer funny.
> >> >
> >> > Jaguar-based V8 power units
> >> >
> >> > Conscious of the need for more power to keep up with the Range Rover's
> >> > competitors, and reluctant to keep relying on BMW for power plants, Ford
> >> > presided over the adaptation of engines from Jaguar (also Ford-owned) for
> >> > Land Rover use. A 4.4-litre, 305 hp (227 kW) version of the Jaguar 4.2-litre
> >> > V8 was developed and first used in the new 2005 Discovery/LR3 model,
> >> > temporarily giving it more power than the Range Rover. At the 2005 Detroit
> >> > Motor Show, a major update of the Range Rover was unveiled, with the base
> >> > model using the LR3/Discovery 3 engine, and a premium model using a
> >> > supercharged version of the Jaguar 4.2-litre V8 developing 400 hp (300
> >> > kW)—the same engine slated for the new Range Rover Sport (the RRS model uses
> >> > a detuned variant making a total of 389 bhp), scheduled for introduction
> >> > about the same time (mid 2005) as the updated Range Rover.
> >> >
> >> > Both engines are lightweight aluminium alloy units, with advanced
> >> > torque-based engine management systems that, together with drive-by-wire
> >> > throttle control and variable camshaft phasing (on the 4.4-litre version),
> >> > continually adjust the engine to deliver optimum performance. Both the
> >> > engines are specially adapted by Land Rover for better low speed torque
> >> > characteristics (important in off-road driving), the ability to run at the
> >> > extreme angles encountered off road, improved protection from dust and rocks,
> >> > and improved sealing needed for wading.
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_R...V8_power_units
> >> >
> >> > If you didn't know already, Jag engines have been OHC since the 60s or even
> >> > the 50s.
> >>
> >> Jaguar engines developed under ford ownership and with ford money.
> >
> > Not those original OHC ones. They lived on for ages because they were basically
> > good engines from the beginning..
>
> The Jag inline 6 and it's two put together V12 haven't been in
> production for many years now.

Because they had them so long ago and you clots still think pushrods rule.

Lord Above !

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It seems the latest Corvette is a fraction of a second quicker than an old Evo but needs
>>>>> a SEVEN litre engine to do it instead of a TWO litre.
>>>> Put a supercharger on the vette if you want to make displacement
>>>> comparisons. Until then your nonsense boils down to being opposed to the
>>>> statement: "There's no replacement for displacement"
>>> Then it's an even more ridiculous comparison.
>> Why? You take a tuners mitsu and compare to it factory vette. Apples and
>> oranges. How about you take a tuner's vette instead? Nahh... because
>> that would show that you're full of shiat.
>
> And you compare a SEVEN litre engine with a TWO litre one.
>
> Only in America !
>
> Graham
>
>

No, YOU did, asshole.

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 2008-11-22, Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> > Brent P wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > It seems the latest Corvette is a fraction of a second quicker than an old Evo but needs
>> >> > a SEVEN litre engine to do it instead of a TWO litre.
>> >>
>> >> Put a supercharger on the vette if you want to make displacement
>> >> comparisons. Until then your nonsense boils down to being opposed to the
>> >> statement: "There's no replacement for displacement"
>> >
>> > Then it's an even more ridiculous comparison.
>>
>> Why? You take a tuners mitsu and compare to it factory vette. Apples and
>> oranges. How about you take a tuner's vette instead? Nahh... because
>> that would show that you're full of shiat.
>
> And you compare a SEVEN litre engine with a TWO litre one.
> Only in America !

You made the comparison, I am just telling you that comparing a tuner
car to a factory stock one is idiotic. I'm sure there's a pinto out
there somewhere that can lay waste to stock vette too. But that pinto
ain't stock.

On Nov 18, 9:18*pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > N8N wrote:
>
> > >> Nothing wrong with pushrods.
>
> > > Apart from the rev limit and bounce.
>
> > how much faster than 7K do you need to rev on the street? *Especially
> > when you have a torquey V8? *I've driven many OHC engines with a redline
> > significantly lower than a new 'vette.
>
> > > Modern engines will have electrically or pressure operated valves, relieving the
> > > engine of about a 10% power drain.
>
> > Cite one example currently on the market, or even close to it. *The only
> > thing I could think even remotely comparable would be Ducati's
> > desmodromic layout.
>
> They're coming soon.
>
> Graham

Yup, just like the practical electric car.

Oh, wait, there actually are people working on that - and right now it
looks like a tossup between the Americans and the Japanese as to who
is going to get there first. No sign of Limeys anywhere...

nate

On 2008-11-22, Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> > Brent P wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >> > Nate Nagel wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> oh, yeah, almost forgot - doesn't Range Rover use a pushrod (gasp!)
>> >> >> *BUICK* (double gasp!) engine? You know, Buick? A division of the same
>> >> >> company that makes the Corvette? The one with the engine you were
>> >> >> saying sucks? The one that actually shares a lot of features and
>> >> >> technology with the old Buick lump? Lord, yer funny.
>> >> >
>> >> > Jaguar-based V8 power units
>> >> >
>> >> > Conscious of the need for more power to keep up with the Range Rover's
>> >> > competitors, and reluctant to keep relying on BMW for power plants, Ford
>> >> > presided over the adaptation of engines from Jaguar (also Ford-owned) for
>> >> > Land Rover use. A 4.4-litre, 305 hp (227 kW) version of the Jaguar 4.2-litre
>> >> > V8 was developed and first used in the new 2005 Discovery/LR3 model,
>> >> > temporarily giving it more power than the Range Rover. At the 2005 Detroit
>> >> > Motor Show, a major update of the Range Rover was unveiled, with the base
>> >> > model using the LR3/Discovery 3 engine, and a premium model using a
>> >> > supercharged version of the Jaguar 4.2-litre V8 developing 400 hp (300
>> >> > kW)—the same engine slated for the new Range Rover Sport (the RRS model uses
>> >> > a detuned variant making a total of 389 bhp), scheduled for introduction
>> >> > about the same time (mid 2005) as the updated Range Rover.
>> >> >
>> >> > Both engines are lightweight aluminium alloy units, with advanced
>> >> > torque-based engine management systems that, together with drive-by-wire
>> >> > throttle control and variable camshaft phasing (on the 4.4-litre version),
>> >> > continually adjust the engine to deliver optimum performance. Both the
>> >> > engines are specially adapted by Land Rover for better low speed torque
>> >> > characteristics (important in off-road driving), the ability to run at the
>> >> > extreme angles encountered off road, improved protection from dust and rocks,
>> >> > and improved sealing needed for wading.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_R...V8_power_units
>> >> >
>> >> > If you didn't know already, Jag engines have been OHC since the 60s or even
>> >> > the 50s.
>> >>
>> >> Jaguar engines developed under ford ownership and with ford money.
>> >
>> > Not those original OHC ones. They lived on for ages because they were basically
>> > good engines from the beginning..
>>
>> The Jag inline 6 and it's two put together V12 haven't been in
>> production for many years now.
>
> Because they had them so long ago and you clots still think pushrods rule.
>
> Lord Above !

There you go again with your ignorance and lumping people as
stereotypes.

I see your jag inline 6 and raise you the 32 valve, DOHC, stutz
straight eight of the 1930s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stutz_Motor_Company
"The company was founded as the Ideal Motor Car Company in Indianapolis,
Indiana in 1911."

"One notable advance was the 1931 DOHC 32-valve in-line 8"

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...utz-DV-32.aspx

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...ercharged.aspx
(1929, DOHC, supercharged)


You should really consider remaining quiet, eeyore.

On Nov 22, 1:16*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-11-22, Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brent P wrote:
>
> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> >> > Brent P wrote:
> >> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> >> >> > Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> >> >> >> oh, yeah, almost forgot - doesn't Range Rover use a pushrod (gasp!)
> >> >> >> *BUICK* (double gasp!) engine? *You know, Buick? *A division of the same
> >> >> >> company that makes the Corvette? *The one with the engine you were
> >> >> >> saying sucks? *The one that actually shares a lot of features and
> >> >> >> technology with the old Buick lump? *Lord, yer funny.
>
> >> >> > Jaguar-based V8 power units
>
> >> >> > Conscious of the need for more power to keep up with the Range Rover's
> >> >> > competitors, and reluctant to keep relying on BMW for power plants, Ford
> >> >> > presided over the adaptation of engines from Jaguar (also Ford-owned) for
> >> >> > Land Rover use. A 4.4-litre, 305 hp (227 kW) version of the Jaguar 4.2-litre
> >> >> > V8 was developed and first used in the new 2005 Discovery/LR3 model,
> >> >> > temporarily giving it more power than the Range Rover. At the 2005 Detroit
> >> >> > Motor Show, a major update of the Range Rover was unveiled, with the base
> >> >> > model using the LR3/Discovery 3 engine, and a premium model using a
> >> >> > supercharged version of the Jaguar 4.2-litre V8 developing 400 hp (300
> >> >> > kW)—the same engine slated for the new Range Rover Sport (the RRS model uses
> >> >> > a detuned variant making a total of 389 bhp), scheduled for introduction
> >> >> > about the same time (mid 2005) as the updated Range Rover.
>
> >> >> > Both engines are lightweight aluminium alloy units, with advanced
> >> >> > torque-based engine management systems that, together with drive-by-wire
> >> >> > throttle control and variable camshaft phasing (on the 4.4-litre version),
> >> >> > continually adjust the engine to deliver optimum performance. Both the
> >> >> > engines are specially adapted by Land Rover for better low speed torque
> >> >> > characteristics (important in off-road driving), the ability to run at the
> >> >> > extreme angles encountered off road, improved protection from dust and rocks,
> >> >> > and improved sealing needed for wading.
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_R...V8_power_units
>
> >> >> > If you didn't know already, Jag engines have been OHC since the 60s or even
> >> >> > the 50s.
>
> >> >> Jaguar engines developed under ford ownership and with ford money.
>
> >> > Not those original OHC ones. They lived on for ages because they were basically
> >> > good engines from the beginning..
>
> >> The Jag inline 6 and it's two put together V12 haven't been in
> >> production for many years now.
>
> > Because they had them so long ago and you clots still think pushrods rule.
>
> > Lord Above !
>
> There you go again with your ignorance and lumping people as
> stereotypes.
>
> I see your jag inline 6 and raise you the 32 valve, DOHC, stutz
> straight eight of the 1930s.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stutz_Motor_Company
> "The company was founded as the Ideal Motor Car Company in Indianapolis,
> Indiana in 1911."
>
> "One notable advance was the 1931 DOHC 32-valve in-line 8"
>
> http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...utz-DV-32.aspx
>
> http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...M-Supercharged....
> (1929, DOHC, supercharged)
>
> You should really consider remaining quiet, eeyore.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Duesey had a SOHC straight eight earlier than that I think. Lots of
old American racing engines were SOHC or DOHC back in the day. It
just wasn't deemed necessary or cost-effective for daily
transportation type vehicles, and of course, it really isn't. Now for
high end sporting type machinery I will admit that the 'vette is a bit
of an exception, but you can't deny that it is a torquey yet high-
revving exception.

nate

N8N wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > N8N wrote:
> >
> > > >> Nothing wrong with pushrods.
> >
> > > > Apart from the rev limit and bounce.
> >
> > > how much faster than 7K do you need to rev on the street? Especially
> > > when you have a torquey V8? I've driven many OHC engines with a redline
> > > significantly lower than a new 'vette.
> >
> > > > Modern engines will have electrically or pressure operated valves, relieving the
> > > > engine of about a 10% power drain.
> >
> > > Cite one example currently on the market, or even close to it. The only
> > > thing I could think even remotely comparable would be Ducati's
> > > desmodromic layout.
> >
> > They're coming soon.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Yup, just like the practical electric car.

So why are semiconductor manufacturers tooling up for them

"An electronic valve control (EVC) system replaces the mechanical camshaft, controlling
each valve with actuators for independent valve timing. The EVC system controls the
opening and closing time and lift amount of each intake and exhaust valve with independent
actuators on each valve. Changing from a mechanical camshaft driven valve into
independently controlled actuator valves provides a huge amount of flexibility in engine
control strategy.

Vehicles utilizing EVC can realize several benefits including:
Increased engine power
Greater fuel economy
More environmentally friendly emissions

With all of the improved efficiencies and consumer benefits, auto manufacturers are eager
to get their first EVC systems on the road."

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...ode=APLELCTVC5

"IF Henry Ford could see the engines now made by the company he founded 100 years ago, he
would probably be puzzled by the electronics that control many operations. But the
mechanical system operating the valves that bring fuel and air into the engine and let out
exhaust would be very familiar.

As in Ford's time, those spring-loaded valves are opened and closed by cams, precisely
shaped bumps of steel spinning along a rotating shaft.

But some automotive researchers are working on ways of making mechanical valve controls as
obsolete as the Model T Ford. Operating the controls electronically could improve fuel
efficiency, reduce emissions and perhaps even eliminate the need for spark plugs in
gasoline engines.

The demise of the camshaft would also be welcomed by companies that make electronic parts
for cars. ''We'd really like to see this technology come along because it requires a huge
use of semiconductors,'' said Ray Cornyn, the manager of Motorola's microcontroller
division in Austin, Tex., which supplies the auto industry."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9659C8B 63

" The next breakthrough engine technology will be an electronic valve control system that
will help generate further fuel savings, said Fiat executive Rinaldo Rinolfi.

Such a system would permit independent valve-by-valve and cylinder-by-cylinder control, he
told the Automotive News Europe Congress."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._/ai_n17955524


> Oh, wait, there actually are people working on that - and right now it
> looks like a tossup between the Americans and the Japanese as to who
> is going to get there first. No sign of Limeys anywhere...

Well, you'll find quite a few in operation in the UK. I'm no fan of the pure EV anyway.
Lack of suitable battery development means they'll never go very far.

Graham