From: mark@wdcwdc.sps.mot.com (Mark Shaw)
Subject: RE: FWD vs. RWD
Organization: Motorola Western MCU Design Center, Chandler Arizona
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:48:51 GMT

> In Article: 37658 Bill Stuart writes.....
> Hmmm...  IMHO, GM built the best big cars in the world.  Nobody could build
> big cars like GM.  When the bean counters and politicians forced econo-boxes
> down our throats, the Japs were much better at building them and kicked our
> butts.  Now that the big three have all but abandoned the big car market,
> the Japanese have gotten smart and produced some superior bigger cars to
> fill the vacuum.  See Lexu$, Infiniti, Diamante, etc.  

Bill, do you come by your bias naturally; or did you get locked in the trunk
of a Toyota Corona or Ford Pinto when you were a child?

> GM has expended alot of time and money choking old technology engines with
> emission controls and making cookie-cutter cars.  If all that energy had 
> been spent on projects like the LT-1, the Northstar V8, and the Quad 4, all
> of which have come too late, GM could have kept the big, comfortable, safe
> cars AND reduced gas comsumption AND reduced emissions AND made profits...

They would have spent more money on those projects if the public (obviously
you included) had stopped buying that "old" technology sooner.

> My emission-choked old-tech 1982 307ci V8 makes a paltry 130 hp STOCK, gets
> shitty mpg, and spews more crap into the atmosphere than Congress.
> That verges on criminal stupidity.

I think you must have bought into the "Big Lie" back in the 60's when
Detroit insisted on using GROSS HP instead of NET HP.  When the emissions
and fuel crisis came along it was a great time to change to NET HP since
everyone was expecting the worst.  In reality your 307ci isn't that bad.
According to data in "Automotive Industries", July 1992, the average US
car in 1976-1982 only produced about 28-29 hp/liter.    Your 307 cid
should be putting out 140-145 hp.   So you're down 10%.

By comparison, the imports were averaging 43-45 hp/liter in the early 80's.
They had a longer experience trying to extract more power/efficiency out
of their smaller engines.  They had the advantage of government regulation
before the US did ;-)

IMHO, The absolute best thing to ever happen to the automotive industry was
the combined constraints of emissions, CAFE, and safety!  Suddenly all those
exotic design ideas could now be shown to have some economic advantage.
The average for the US cars in 1992 was 49.3 hp/liter and for the imports
it was 71.8 hp/liter. 

As far as your 307 being dirty, your admitted broke/cheap tendency must
have let it go to pot, since the emission standard for post-1981 cars is
the toughest currently on the books.  Your 1982 307 should be at least
20 times cleaner than it's 60's counterpart.

> I'm too broke/cheap to get rid of it, though.  Hmmm, LT-1 transplant? 

Lighten up Bill!  The automakers have done an excellent job of responding
to the challenge.  Dig down in your pocket and go buy some of this new
technology.  My 1988 2.8L V6 gets the same power as your 307 and also
gets 25-28 mpg on the road.  It's A-body GM, which has as much interior
space as those old "big" cars and a lot more trunk space.  

If you do go looking for a new(er) car -- I would suggest not trying to
convert the engine displacement to cid.  With your sensitivities,
buying a 4-liter V6 might be OK, but I'm sure you would never,
I mean never, consider buying a 250 cid 6-cylinder!   :-)

Mark