Re: Good GM/Bad GM

wrote:

GM USA?
GM Europe http://www.worldcarfans.com/2040414.009/-opel-twin-turbo-revolutionizes-diesel-engine-technology
What's being delivered. http://www.saab.co.uk/gb/en/start#/world/news-and-events/news-archive/ttid/carrousel:all /
Sorry if 180bhp from a 1.9L 4 pot just isn't enough to meet your requirements.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2040414.009/-opel-twin-turbo-revolutionizes-diesel-engine-technology
http://www.saab.co.uk/gb/en/start#/world/news-and-events/news-archive/ttid/carrousel:all /
The CEO of GM scoffed at turbo-diesels for the American market...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the GM 2.0 gasoline turbocharged engine is a little goofy in that it has up to 20 psi of boost for 260 horsepower. Meanwhile VW holds the line for the 2.0 gasoline turbocharged engine at a more trustworthy 200 horsepower...
But to continue on this branch subject...Ford has a twin-turbo gasoline V-6 on the way. And that's not sequential turbos but a turbo for each bank of cyliners...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But Ford doesn't think that it's long standing 3.0 V-6 is the engine that needs to be turbocharged but thinks that its 3.5 V-6 is the engine that needs to be turbocharged.
Meanwhile...the EPA just came out with a finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public safety. And that means that the EPA can regulate without Congress...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

but when that engine has Audi on it's lid it makes 225bhp.

Which is how BMW 335i works, one little turbo for front 3, 2nd little turbo for back 3. They didn't go the whole hog as it would have trod on the M3 toes. Small turbo's that spool at reasonably low rpm have been in use for years. Gives near instant response and top gear acceleration at 60-70mph that matches 4th gear response of engines 2x the size. BMW and Ford experience of turbo's is coloured by them making turbo petrol engines back when turbo's were big, giving top end power with lots of lag and nothing in the mid range. It's taken them 20 years to wise up.
Nissan had 280bhp from the 2L SR20VET back in 2001. It used Honda V-tec (hence the "V") + ball bearing turbo running around 1 bar. It was fitted to the JDM only X-Trail GT. It should have gone in the S15 JDM Silvia / Aus/NZ 200SX. But that was killed off because with just 250bhp SR20DET it was on par with the 350Z.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:43:57 +0100, Peter Hill

Sequential turbos are usually the wa to go. You eliminate lag with the small primary turbo and get solid boost up higher with the secondary turbo.
But, that said, GM has been way too ignorant for way too long, as has Ford. GM bought into Saab, then purchased it in full, long ago. Saab has had rock solid 4 cyl turbos for many years. What's the first thing GM does with Saab? They stuff an anemic NA V6 in them with a 30K timing belt changes.
Ford hasn't been much better - they're talking about turbocharging now as if it's something revolutionary and never before seen when in fact they ignored it for years in favor of a "more cubic inches is better" strategy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never kept up with the whole Saab thing - what motor did they stuff in that had a timing belt?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@windstream.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:01:21 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

Some V6 motor they dragged out of Opel. After people starting snapping belts and ruining motors left and right, GM did agree to pay for the first three changes - but only if you did it along with the other factory recommended service package.
But, it was just part of more overall stupidity. They took Saab, a brand that had a following for specific reasons, and proceeded to gut it of all those reasons. Not to get too Saab specific here, but they also decided that Saab needed a 4wd vehicle - and instead of letting them engineer it, they took a Subaru and let Saab tweak the body work. That went over well with the faithful. Then they decided Saab needed an SUV, so they did the same to a Chevy Trailblazer.
But, Saab isn't the only brand they diluted. Look at Cadillac. In their usual penchant that all brands should be all things to everyone, they continually generisize their lines until there's no reason for them all to exist. (Meanwhile they ignore what the market actually wants and sound business principles, but that's another thread)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:43:57 +0100, Peter Hill

Wise up to what?
The only reason Europe has these technical "marvels" is because government market manipulation through taxes makes expensive tech less expensive than just making the engine a bit bigger.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only thing GM did wrong is that they didn't come to the internet sooner and ask all the arm chair managers to put down their beer and expound their brilliance as it has been shown here.
Best laugh I've had since I drove a Honda back in the early seventies.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.