From: issa@cwis.unomaha.edu (Issa El-Hazin)
Subject: Re: Why is US engine technology so retrograde?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:13:41 GMT


>>I agree that the tax on the engine size in many countries (a Maserati 
>>with less than 2.0 litre V6 302bhp!! Italy's tax code penalizes cars 
>>with engines of greater than 2.0-litre displacement) is a major factor 
>>that is pushing other car makers to perform.

>Don't get me wrong, but there's more to engines than the displacement
>vs horsepower debate. Are you comparing exoticars vs. 200,000/year 
>volume cars? 

I wasn't. Don't put words in my mouth. Exoticars are not the only cars
that come with great engines (with good hp/liter). 

>A model airplane engine run on nitromethane develops
>several horses out of a few CC's (not liters!). 

Talking about airplanes, I read Toyota and Honda started to make 
airplanes so they can use some of that technology in their cars.
We have to wait and see if anything come out of this.

>Would you like 
>a nitromethane powered car idling at 10,000 rpm if you could have 
>500 hp out of 2 liters? Motorcycle engines routinely develop 
>much more than 100 hp/liter. Can they be fitted to cars?

There are limits for everything. Who was talking about cars that 
idle at 10,000rpm? This is something you totally fabricating? 

I'm not sure about Motorcycle engines fitted to cars, but I think some 
of Honda's and Yamaha's Motorcycle engines [with some mods] can be found 
in some compact cars.

>Also don't forget that Europeans had (till recently) relatively few
>emission controls or fuel consumption problems. If the Maserati
>biturbo you quote produces 10 miles a gallon and the company has to
>start worrying about it pulling its CAFE down... Don't give me the
>"gas costs $4.50/gallon in Italy" thing; if I can afford a Maserati
>I sure as hell can pay $4.50/gallon.... 

Following with your same logic then they should also be able to pay for 
an engine bigger than the 2.0l.

By the way, the new Ghibli is claimed to be the best Biturbo ever
(wiht the 1.96l engine). 
Not that I would ever buy one [at least not untill I win the lottery], but 
it sells for about the same price as the NSX.

>As for domestic technology, I believe a turbocharged quad 4 engine did
>600-800 hp. (the one that powered the Aerotech to its world record
>breaking drive by AJ Foyt some years back). The Olds Aurora engine was
>also used on the same car frame (aerotech) to break a record for 24
>hours continuous driving (I think they run the car for 24 hours
>straight at either 150 or 175 mph on an oval course just recently.
>I'll have to look it up during lunch). The engine was essentially a
>stock engine. 

Great. Where can one buy this 600-800 hp quad 4 in a stock car? 
And would the engine noise stop my heart?

The 4.0l (and 4.6l) 32v V8 GM and the Mercury 4.6l 32v engines just came 
out in 92 (and about time, if I may say so myself). 
I'm not disputing their technology. Now, lets' see this technology go in
the more basic bread_&_butter cars.

>Smaller don't always mean less. In some rich countries where there is no 
>tax on engine size [or anything else] and the gas is dirt cheap, many small 
>sporty engines are very popular.

>Like? How many Acuras in Saudi Arabia (sorry, could NOT resist :-)???

I don't know about Saudi Arabia. I never been there, neither did I ever 
had the desire to, so I can't give you a definite answer. 
Regardless, you are like a fish out of water on this subject. Totally out 
of your element. Stick to cars, at least you have little knowledge on them.

>Anyhow, I know I won't convince you. Doesn't matter.

Hey, I haven't learned everything yet. I'm still learning and have an open
mind. Give me something to convince me and I'll change my views.

>Spiros

regards,

Issa

Xref: sparky rec.autos:31207 rec.autos.tech:17545