Devils

Try again. It isn't that America doesn't have good engineering, it is that they have terrible and almighty accountants. Car design is not design for function but rather design for assembly. If a process can save a penny a car, they will do it. If that process adds 3 hours to you changing the oil in your driveway, well, too bad. That is the accountants in the Big Three running the show.

You may love the idea of fresh new car designs every 5 years, but the accountants see that as $250 million that won't be recouped for several years.

You scream because they could have used screws for a panel you need access through but instead they used plastic rivets that you can't replace. you cry, but they saved 10 cents a car. Big deal you say, well on a 10 million car run, that saved $1,000,000. When was the last time you saved your company $1,000,000?

Most GM engineers don't like to go backwards in technology. The torque tube connection between the front and the rear goes back a long time. Try the

50s, 40s, and 30s. The same for the transverse front leave spring going back to the Model T. Finally they gave in on Corvette because it was the best idea for the job. GM had a rear transaxle and front engine long ago, like the early 60s Pontiac Tempest. Corvette for 1960 had it in the works, but the 1960 Q-Corvette never surfaced due to the recession in '58.

928, the car that had a better Coefficient of Drag going backward than forward. In embarrassment, Porsche hung a rear spoiler on not to improve the forward efficiency, but to destroy the rearward efficiency. Now that is high tech engineering.

And no matter how much you cry about the differences in technology, in the real world, the difference between drivers far exceeds the differences in cars. Learn to drive better and smarter and you'll probably beat the other guy all the time. With the difference in price of the cars, you can buy a lot of track time.

Reply to
Tom in Moussouri
Loading thread data ...

What's your source for this?

Reply to
Jim Keenan

Tom-

You can "blame" accountants all you want, but there is a distinct difference between the average production car and a specialty model. Usually no expense is spared in specialty models. After all, it is a limited run and will usually find an audience. The GM engineers are well aware of their shortcomings, but are also aware that improvements to their models will put the cars out of their target buying crowd. As for G.M. "going backwards". Pure and utter nonsense. That attempt at a the Tempest with the transaxle in the 60's was a huge failure and on top of that it wasn't even tried with a V-8. They didn't use it because they couldn't make it work. Your 928 ramblings are simply made up. Please post a link with the "facts" you have presented. If you study the 928 you will learn that the 928 design was designed to be efficient as well as safe. It was built with crumple zones years ahead of anybody else. It's smaller V-8 generated more power than it's contemporaries. It's groundbreaking V-8 mated to a torque tube and transaxle was a first anywhere. The nonsense of "slapping on a wing" to reduce the rear drag is just fantasy. The rear wing actually reduced the drag from .41 to .34. If you knew anything of the history of the 928 you would have known this.

Try this on for size.

formatting link
I do agree with your driver/car statement. With that being said, it now comes down to the intangables. Looks, design, build quality, reliability and longevity. This is where G.M. comes up way short. Anybody can build fast. That is simple. There are Fords, Subarus and Mitsubishis that will smoke a Corvette or 911 Turbo in the 1/4 mile, but, building an all around drivers car is quite another story. You just need to go to J.D. Powers long term reliability survey to answer most of your questions.

Oh, and by addressing this to "Devils", you are just going to poke the bear. Be prepared to hear about the four cylinder 944 beating up on the V-8 Corvettes, Camaros and Firebirds in IMSA competition.

Good luck with your plastic coffin - Jack

Reply to
JFKFC_1

You started off well and then just got stupid.

Tom > Try again. It isn't that America doesn't have good engineering, it is that

Reply to
G Larson

Volvo had crumple zones long before the 928 was around.

Joe C.

Reply to
jlc

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.