Considering build quality:
BMW, Nissan, Toyota all build cars in the US with American workers.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler (not the Daimler part) all build cars in the US with American workers.
What’s the difference? BMW, Nissan and Toyota use non-union employees.
Why dillute the fuel with water? Just make a smaller engine.
i think the water cools the chamber and reduces knock.
also when the fuel is burned, the water flashes into steam, which adds pressure to the piston
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
GhostOfYourMind wrote:
Also, ever heard of a “Blue Devil”? C6 Corvette putting out 600+hp and weighing 2900 lbs. It can hang with the best of them on a road track (they even tested it on a German road course, I can dig it up if you would like:)), and is no slouch at all.
I’m pretty sure road and track or car and driver or autoweek or one of those magazines and they said it was the fastest street car they’ve ever driven.[/quote]
One of those, yeah. Thanks. 2900 lbs. with 600+ horsies frollicking under the hood is bound to be pretty bitchin’…
Wonder what insurance is on it? Ouch! Haha!
OK, were should I start?
a) In many countries there is a car tax that is proportional to the displacement of the engine (yes, it is silly, but it is also true). Smaller engines will be much, much cheaper in those countries and/or increase the margin for the manufacturer.
b) Gas prices in many European countries are twice to three times as high as in the US, so gas mileage is 2 to 3 times more important…
It’s fun on weekends, and it’s definitely fun on German and Japanese freeways, but for example here in California it’s far from fun during the week. I had a high-revving, manual shift car for exactly a year, but then I had to trade it in before I went ga-ga during my daily commute on I-280.
Even with automatic transmissions the shifting can be a problem because high-rev engines tend to wear them out faster; one can argue that the Japanese manufacturers did a great job at making auto transmissions that are resilient enough to make this a moot point, however the noise and vibration problem is still there. American manufacturers, well known for being completely unable to design a decent transmission (manual or auto), are wise enough to stay away from high-revving engines.
The exception is of course the Mazda RX-8, with its rotary engine, which is able to combine a very small size with no vibration and little noise. But that’s ONE car, and it stil has pretty bad mileage.
The problem with American cars is not the engine. Far from it. The problems with American cars are a) Poor chassis b) Poor materials and c) Poor electronics.
VW (or better yet, VAG – VW/Audi Group) sucks. Everybody knows that. And, by the way, miniross: Seat doesn’t exist here (anymore). Unfortunately, Audi does.
By the way, German cars – even Bimmers – also suck in the Electronics department. They’re at least one generation behind Japanese cars.
The problem with Japanese cars, on the other hand, is that most of them are either fugly or FWD. Or both.
(I hate FWD. With passion.)
So, to answer the question (finally!) the causes for the bad design are a) they were spoiled by decades of little or no regulation and taxation (compared to Europe) and easy sales to undemanding customers (i.e., no real incentive to do better) and b) American engineering colleges suck big-time. Yes, I said it. Yes, even my employer, Stanford, sucks at it. We might be great at teaching Scientists (including Doctors), Lawyers, and Businessmen – but Engineers? Nope. Sad, but true. No wonder anytime a US manufacturer makes a decent car, it’s designed by a foreign team and targeted at the overseas market.
[quote]GhostOfYourMind wrote:
miniross wrote:
Yes, a big lazy V8 does have its owns satisfactions, but obviously couldnt stick it on the twisteys, and i am not sure if the US engneers have the engineering knowledge there. Ford could rope someone in from this side of the pond, as could all of the large firms.
Ford owns Aston Martin and Jaguar, which is a British car company, or is now, or was… You get my point… lol!
Also, ever heard of a “Blue Devil”? C6 Corvette putting out 600+hp and weighing 2900 lbs. It can hang with the best of them on a road track (they even tested it on a German road course, I can dig it up if you would like:)), and is no slouch at all.[/quote]
The nuremburg ring, yes, american car firms are testing there now. BMW use it as their general test track.
I bet its ride quality would be rubbisn, though.
[quote]hspder wrote:
OK, were should I start?
a) In many countries there is a car tax that is proportional to the displacement of the engine (yes, it is silly, but it is also true). Smaller engines will be much, much cheaper in those countries and/or increase the margin for the manufacturer.
b) Gas prices in many European countries are twice to three times as high as in the US, so gas mileage is 2 to 3 times more important…
It’s fun on weekends, and it’s definitely fun on German and Japanese freeways, but for example here in California it’s far from fun during the week. I had a high-revving, manual shift car for exactly a year, but then I had to trade it in before I went ga-ga during my daily commute on I-280.
Even with automatic transmissions the shifting can be a problem because high-rev engines tend to wear them out faster; one can argue that the Japanese manufacturers did a great job at making auto transmissions that are resilient enough to make this a moot point, however the noise and vibration problem is still there. American manufacturers, well known for being completely unable to design a decent transmission (manual or auto), are wise enough to stay away from high-revving engines.
The exception is of course the Mazda RX-8, with its rotary engine, which is able to combine a very small size with no vibration and little noise. But that’s ONE car, and it stil has pretty bad mileage.
The problem with American cars is not the engine. Far from it. The problems with American cars are a) Poor chassis b) Poor materials and c) Poor electronics.
VW (or better yet, VAG – VW/Audi Group) sucks. Everybody knows that. And, by the way, miniross: Seat doesn’t exist here (anymore). Unfortunately, Audi does.
By the way, German cars – even Bimmers – also suck in the Electronics department. They’re at least one generation behind Japanese cars.
The problem with Japanese cars, on the other hand, is that most of them are either fugly or FWD. Or both.
(I hate FWD. With passion.)
So, to answer the question (finally!) the causes for the bad design are a) they were spoiled by decades of little or no regulation and taxation (compared to Europe) and easy sales to undemanding customers (i.e., no real incentive to do better) and b) American engineering colleges suck big-time. Yes, I said it. Yes, even my employer, Stanford, sucks at it. We might be great at teaching Scientists (including Doctors), Lawyers, and Businessmen – but Engineers? Nope. Sad, but true. No wonder anytime a US manufacturer makes a decent car, it’s designed by a foreign team and targeted at the overseas market.
[/quote]
Great summery of the sitaution. However, to say smaller capacity engines run out faster, honda nd the V tec engine has never had a failiure of its technology, in cars at least.
Ironically, Jaguar (not as you say jagwar!) Makes cars aimed at the US market, but has the poise and refinment that europeans expect. Maybe this has ring fenced american car manufacturers (chrysler do one over here (RHD and the lot) which is good, but engineered by a german, i think)
Also, FWD, depends on the car. There are many FWD cars that drive like RWD in handling, no torque steer and neutral cassis dynamics, as the need to make them better has been demanded.
[quote]GhostOfYourMind wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:
GhostOfYourMind wrote:
Also, ever heard of a “Blue Devil”? C6 Corvette putting out 600+hp and weighing 2900 lbs. It can hang with the best of them on a road track (they even tested it on a German road course, I can dig it up if you would like:)), and is no slouch at all.
I’m pretty sure road and track or car and driver or autoweek or one of those magazines and they said it was the fastest street car they’ve ever driven.
One of those, yeah. Thanks. 2900 lbs. with 600+ horsies frollicking under the hood is bound to be pretty bitchin’… Wonder what insurance is on it? Ouch! Haha!
[/quote]
that is a heavy car really. Better very light and smaller engine for drivability (lotus etc), the new one is less than 1000 kilos, and has 240 hp through a supercharded 2 litre engine, so plenty of torque.
[quote]GhostOfYourMind wrote:
miniross wrote:
Getting away from the efficiency issues, what happens when an american car firm gets hold of a 8 litre v10…450 sluggush horsepower and poor refinement.
German engineers get 5 litres and a V10, and they get 500 HP and it screams up to 8000.
There seems to be a discrepancy with not only the amount of hoarses/litre, but the way in which it delivers those horses, and thats noy going over to ride refimnet and handling.
I know the needs of road users (different roads etc) in the US are different, but is that an excuse? Could an american car firm ever produce an M3 or M5 type car?
I think the roads DO make a difference in what kind of engine is in a car, and how it handles, etc. If your only concern is drag racing, you need torque! Drag racing is about being the quickest, not the fastest. In Europe, there’s probably more popularity with road racing/circuits, which is totally different from drag racing.
BTW, were you referring to the Viper’s 8.0 liter V10 (510 horsepower for the most recent vipers I think, not 450) and the BMW’s 5.0 liter V10? I think the Bimmer’s V10 gets 18MPG on highway…which isn’t exactly “fuel efficient”. The viper is probably worse, but not by a whole lot when you consider 510 horsepower.
Lastly, as a “rebuttal” about technology in each respective engine; the BMW engine probably costs much more than the Viper engine, and the Viper engine most likely has PLENTY of room left for development (more potential for refinement). The BMW engine probably doesn’t have as much room left for improvement. Eventually, they’ll have to up the displacement, or pour more technology into the engine, which means MORE money.
Just my two cents though.[/quote]
The m5 has 390 ftlb of torque, so no slouch, and you are right, it would be at the extreme end of its performance, but is wayyy lighter, and would handle better. and seats 5 people, and will do over 200 mph if de restricted.
Also, have you heard of a turbo!
And thats my point. there is no need for a big heavy engine with massive displacment for power. It smacks of laziness and lack of creativity. Now the viper is great, but you could probably pull near to those figures reliably with a small block and smaller displanmect. Christ, do what AMG do and bolt a supercharger on.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
miniross wrote:
American car engineers seem to make poor quality cars. Europen and japanese car companies just seem to engineer there cars better.
It seems American cars are getting better but not up to the level of the Japanese.
I think American cars are as good or better than the European and Koreans in terms of build quality.
VW seems to be building the most unreliable cars lately.
Good designs etc but there seem to be lots of problems.
We were considering a diesel Jetta but the more VW owners I talked to and the more searches I did on line indicated the quality is not what we would normally expect from a German car.
Dont get a jetta (if it is the same as the jetta here, then it will have poor residuals).
A good friend of mine wrks for VW as a technician (read mechanic) and he says that they have gone down hill compared to what they were.
Good alternatives, if you get them woud be audi (cost more), or Seats. They are owned by VW, but have better design, more unique and the quality is OK.[/quote]
Jetta in US is a Bora in Europe. Although we used to have Jetta till its replacement became Vento and then what we know as Bora came out.
I was talking to an AA man (basically a mobile breakdown guy) and I asked him what car he would buy new based on what he is called out to fix, and he, without hesitation . said, Toyota or Honda. I asked him the ones he gets caled out to the most and he said, Audi, BMW and Mercedes. HE cited electrics as the main problems on these cars. As it seems, nobody beats the Japanese (and now the Koreans) on build quality.
Our last car company went tits up recently, MG/Rover because they wasted a boat load of money developing pointless V8 monsters nobody would even consider buying, and shooehorning Mustang engines into mundane family hacks.
Its not just the US motor trade that was effected by the Japanese productions. I think if the UK has any car makers left they make kit cars out of wood, blu-tack and sawdust.
TVR is now Russian owned, Rover - gone, Jaguar, Land/Range Rover, Aston Martin all gone to Ford. Vauxhall’s been part of GM for years, but they do sell the V8 Monaro which is a Holden design.
[quote]miniross wrote:
… and i am not sure if the US engneers have the engineering knowledge there. Ford could rope someone in from this side of the pond, as could all of the large firms.
…[/quote]
The knowhow isn’t sitting in Detroit for these types of engines but that is not what is stopping the US from doing it.
This type of engineering is now global.
Harley used Porsche to design it’s latest engine.
Any American company could get the know how. They just are too short sited to do it.
[quote]hspder wrote:
…
…
[/quote]
Building cars to drive well in gridlock is the tail wagging the dog.
Time to start taking the bus. Unfortunately no one wants to do this.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
miniross wrote:
… and i am not sure if the US engneers have the engineering knowledge there. Ford could rope someone in from this side of the pond, as could all of the large firms.
…
The knowhow isn’t sitting in Detroit for these types of engines but that is not what is stopping the US from doing it.
This type of engineering is now global.
Harley used Porsche to design it’s latest engine.
Any American company could get the know how. They just are too short sited to do it.[/quote]
Yes, that is true. I guess its the cost. Teams of people design and build these things, and that takes time. Take the audi gmbh division, the equivilent of M for BMW. They have only just now got what is a trult excellent car, the S4. It has taken time for them to understand and work out what they need to. BMW has had M for years, and as such, a greater depth of knowledge is there.
So you are right, the experience and knowledge is there, wheter it would transfer quickly enough is questionable.
Chrysler HAVE done this with some success with their latest saloon, but in no way is it as good a finished article.
[quote]miniross wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
miniross wrote:
… and i am not sure if the US engneers have the engineering knowledge there. Ford could rope someone in from this side of the pond, as could all of the large firms.
…
The knowhow isn’t sitting in Detroit for these types of engines but that is not what is stopping the US from doing it.
This type of engineering is now global.
Harley used Porsche to design it’s latest engine.
Any American company could get the know how. They just are too short sited to do it.
Yes, that is true. I guess its the cost. Teams of people design and build these things, and that takes time. Take the audi gmbh division, the equivilent of M for BMW. They have only just now got what is a trult excellent car, the S4. It has taken time for them to understand and work out what they need to. BMW has had M for years, and as such, a greater depth of knowledge is there.
So you are right, the experience and knowledge is there, wheter it would transfer quickly enough is questionable.
Chrysler HAVE done this with some success with their latest saloon, but in no way is it as good a finished article.[/quote]
Exactly. They don’t want to spend the money today. They will deal with it tomorrow. Typical management style in modern American business.
I’m suprised no one has mentioned direct port injection for gas powered engines. Diesel has been doing it forever with great success and now many car makers are putting money into researching it for normal gas engines. Its said to be able to increase both MPG and HP/TQ considerably in one fell swoop. Since when fuel is injected directly into the chamber it will atomize better to provide better combustion and it will also cool the chamber allowing the engine to run at higher compression while remaining at a lower temp to avoid NOx and pre-detonation.
Or VWs old technology that they have recently pulled back out on there Golf I think it is, the twin charger. A supercharger for low RPM and than as the engine revs up switches over to a turbo charger. Again its been shown to improve fuel economy and increase power. Though of course your going to have huge issues when running both a supercharger and a turbo, could create some rather large repair bills.
I disagree with the Jap cars being advanced on the electronics though, European cars break down so often because of electronics because of what they have in the cars. Mercedes is running fiber optics in there cars to control prob at least 50 different computers ranging from braking to HVAC to knowing when its raining to turn on the windshield wipers. So of course your going to have more problems, they have the latest and greatest technology in the cars that has not been proven to work. And than take into account who owns these cars, with a high end car the owner is more likely to bring it to a dealership or call AAA to get roadside assistance. They have the money to spend and they dont want anything to go wrong with ehre cars.
Where as with Japanese cars they for the most part take proven technology and put it in there cars. So of course they are going to have more reliability. When someone in a honda breaks down they are much less likely to bring it to a dealership(unless its under warranty of course) or call AAA for roadside assistance.
But turbos and superchargers are so reliable these days, especially if its not high boost low compression that is normally associated or required for turbo operation.
Its a good idea, by eliminating the lag with the SC makes it more drivable, and would have a benefit on fuel economy. Also, you can tune the fuck out ot it!
[quote]miniross wrote:
Yes, that is true. I guess its the cost. Teams of people design and build these things, and that takes time. Take the audi gmbh division, the equivilent of M for BMW. They have only just now got what is a trult excellent car, the S4. It has taken time for them to understand and work out what they need to. BMW has had M for years, and as such, a greater depth of knowledge is there.[/quote]
Audi has been making S# cars for years. The first S4 was introduced in 1991. BMW introduced the first M5 in 1984. So they aren’t that far off. Unless i misunderstood and you’re saying the newest S4 is a truly excellent car. Also, it’s nurburgring not nuremberg ring.
But anyway, I’m of the opinion that education doesn’t make great engineers (just like guitar lessons don’t make you a great guitar player), it only gives you a base on which to build your own expertise. You either have it or you don’t, and no amount of degrees will give you that one world changing idea. There’s no way you can learn everything there is to know about something in 4 years of college so it is up to the engineer to keep learning and doing. Experience is what truly matters.
[quote]miniross wrote:
But turbos and superchargers are so reliable these days, especially if its not high boost low compression that is normally associated or required for turbo operation.
Its a good idea, by eliminating the lag with the SC makes it more drivable, and would have a benefit on fuel economy. Also, you can tune the fuck out ot it![/quote]
It is a good idea but look at it like this, the more parts you have on a car the more parts your gonna have broken. Especially with those two parts needing so many other supporting things to make sure it all runs properly. Also ppl just dont buy the twin charged idea/car VW tryed it I think around 5 years ago and it just never sold well or had reliability issues. I’m to young to be able to look back 5 years ago and really remember the cause. So now they have pulled the concept back and with new technology they have now they are giving it another go.
there’s also variable geometry turbos which have articulated fins on the turbine impeller that change angle to make it act like a small turbo at low rpm and a large turbo at high rpm. the powerstroke and duramax diesels have them as well as the new 911 turbo.
Also there are many garage inventors that have come up with many ideas for improved fuel economy and power. One of those inventors created a roller cam design in a head. It uses no valves, no lifters, no retainer springs. No valve train other than the dual Cams what so ever. It just uses cut outs on a circular cam to allow air/fuel to enter the combustion chamber and than the other cam has cut outs to allow the exhaust gasses to flow out. Much more effiecent and powerfull while also taking one of the biggest limiting factors out of making a high revving motor.