Why Do American Makers Go for Big Displacement

baking dish, buttocks up.
Tie with butcher string around and across so that he looks like
he?s crawling.
Glaze, then arrange pineapples and secure with cloves.
Bake uncovered in 350° oven till thermometer reaches 160°.



Cajun Babies

Just like crabs or crawfish, babies are boiled alive!
You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands.

6 live babies
1 lb. smoked sausage
4 lemons
whole garlic
2 lb. new potatoes
4 ears corn
1 box salt
crab boil

Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil.
Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic.
Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes.
Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes.
Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover.
Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork.



Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs

Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe,
and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume!
An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood
yet succulent source of protein.

2 human baby rib racks
3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index)
Salt
black pepper
white pepper
paprika

Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges,
then stripping off.
Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh.
Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack.
Bake uncovered in 250° oven for 1½ hours.
When browned, remove and glaze,
return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze.
Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce.



Fresh Sausage

If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating
human babies, this is the perfect solution.
But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt.

5 lb. lean chuck roast
3 lb. prime baby butt
2 tablespoons each:
salt
black, white and cayenne peppers
celery salt
garlic p

6 live babies
1 lb. smoked sausage
4 lemons
whole garlic
2 lb. new potatoes
4 ears corn
1 box salt
crab boil

Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil.
Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic.
Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes.
Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes.
Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover.
Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork.



Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs

Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe,
and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume!
An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood
yet succulent source of protein.

2 human baby rib racks
3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index)
Salt
black pepper
white pepper
paprika

Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges,
then stripping off.
Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh.
Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack.
Bake uncovered in 250° oven for 1½ hours.
When browned, remove and glaze,
return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze.
Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce.



Fresh Sausage

If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating
human babies, this is the perfect solution.
But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt.

5 lb. lean chuck roast
3 lb. prime baby butt
2 tablespoons each:
salt
black, white and cayenne peppers
celery salt
garlic powder
parsley flakes
brown sugar
1 teaspoon sage
2 onions
6 cloves garlic
bunch gr

On 25 Dec 2004 10:23:37 -0800, "stork" >
wrote:

>It seems that German car makers favor high output with small
>displacement, but Americans favor getting that output through large
>displacement. For example, the new GM Z06 Vette rumoured to be
>launched in 05 will feature a 7 liter engine to make around 500-600hp.
>But, Porsche will get similar power out of a much, much smaller
>displacement engine. What are the reasons pro or con for either
>approach, from an engineering perspective.
>
>Thanks!

I think basically it's because of the continuing availability of
relatively cheap gas here in the states. At this point, oil companies
are lobbying extremely heavily to keep things that way. The oil
companies would of course prefer that Americans continue their love
affair with huge behemoths powered by large displacement engines, more
money for them.

During the oil crisis of 74 there was a taste of the future when gas
was suddenly not available and long lines at the few gas stations
still pumping ensued. I recall hearing about fights and even gunfire
when peoples cars died in line due to lack of fuel and those behind
simply drove around them rather than helping to push them in.

There was a scramble to put out cars that were more fuel efficient.
That sentiment has obviously died, at least here in the states.

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:

> On 25 Dec 2004 10:23:37 -0800, "stork" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>It seems that German car makers favor high output with small
>>displacement, but Americans favor getting that output through large
>>displacement. For example, the new GM Z06 Vette rumoured to be
>>launched in 05 will feature a 7 liter engine to make around 500-600hp.
>>But, Porsche will get similar power out of a much, much smaller
>>displacement engine. What are the reasons pro or con for either
>>approach, from an engineering perspective.
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>
> I think basically it's because of the continuing availability of
> relatively cheap gas here in the states.

But displacement has little effect on efficiency. In fact, I'll
challenge you to find a smaller engine of similar output to the current
LS-1 that achieves better fuel efficiency than the Corvette. Or even the
Viper, for that matter- although it gets pretty lousy gas mileage, so do
all the other exotics in the >500 horsepower category.


Larger displacement = longer life for a given power output. Less
component stress, less requirement for high combustion pressures, less
requirement for high-octane fuel, less need for power-adders like forced
induction. Basically, if the chassis will hold a larger displacement
engine, its better to go with it rather than an over-stressed small
engine. OTOH, if the form factor of the chassis doesn't allow a bigger
displacement engine, then you have to live with the shortcomings of high
power density engines.

Performance wise, large displacement wins again. High torque is
available instantly from any RPM, whereas smaller engines tend to have
"peaky" torque curves and maximum torque at higher RPM than a larger
engine of the same power output.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:08:29 -0600, Steve > wrote:

>But displacement has little effect on efficiency. In fact, I'll
>challenge you to find a smaller engine of similar output to the current
>LS-1 that achieves better fuel efficiency than the Corvette. Or even the
>Viper, for that matter- although it gets pretty lousy gas mileage, so do
>all the other exotics in the >500 horsepower category.

Sorry, I used the wrong description. Rather than saying more fuel
efficient, I should have said better fuel milage.

True today's engines, of all sizes are pretty fuel efficient compared
to those in 1974, but a big high powered engine developed for nose
bleeding acceleration will never equal the over the road milage of a
Honda Insight, as you pointed out.

I'm suggesting that the reason the US continues to use relatively
large displacement engines when compared to Europe, powering
relatively large and heavy vehicals is most likely due to the
continued availability of relatively inexpensive gas.

Large engines tend to be more fuel efficient than smaller engines
despite electronics technology. Aircraft engines continually run at a
lower BSFC percent (when properly leaned for cruise) than any auto
engine excepting diesels. And this is using magnetos rather than
electronic ignition. Aircraft engines tend to be larger displacement
because they direct drive the prop, which due to increasing
inefficiencies with increasing prop tip speeds, generally have to spin
at no more than 2,700 given a typical diameter of 74 to 78 inches. In
order for such an engine to develop any power at all, it needs to have
a largish displacement.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:08:29 -0600, Steve > wrote:
>
> >But displacement has little effect on efficiency. In fact, I'll
> >challenge you to find a smaller engine of similar output to the current
> >LS-1 that achieves better fuel efficiency than the Corvette. Or even the
> >Viper, for that matter- although it gets pretty lousy gas mileage, so do
> >all the other exotics in the >500 horsepower category.
>
> Sorry, I used the wrong description. Rather than saying more fuel
> efficient, I should have said better fuel milage.
>
> True today's engines, of all sizes are pretty fuel efficient compared
> to those in 1974, but a big high powered engine developed for nose
> bleeding acceleration will never equal the over the road milage of a
> Honda Insight, as you pointed out.
>
> I'm suggesting that the reason the US continues to use relatively
> large displacement engines when compared to Europe, powering
> relatively large and heavy vehicals is most likely due to the
> continued availability of relatively inexpensive gas.
>

Duh, anyone in the business knows this.

But it's a mistake to think that the oil companies are lobbying to keep
it this way. They aren't. Instead, it's the European governments that
are deliberately pushing up fuel prices in Europe through taxes and such -
for the simple and obvious reason that places in Europe have higher
population density and as a result this makes mass-transit desirable
(at least, desirable for the government) and the governments aren't
stupid -they know that give a chance, the people would rather drive
cars and only the fuel prices are keeping them on mass transit.

Truth is though that if you live in a city that has decent mass transit,
not driving from place to place is not really that bad. However the only
2 cities I've ever been in that had decent mass transit were New York
and London. The rest of them, including the city I live in, labor under the
delusion that a decent mass transit system can be built with busses.

Ted