"pj" <pj4380@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:x4sfj.7843$DR7.7079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Uncle_vito wrote:
>> Woopdie do.
>>
>> Not bad for the #1 automaker in the world. What the hell took so long.
>>
>> Too bad they have to do it with 6.2 Liters and a supercharger. How
about
>> with 5 liters and 4 valves/cylinder and overhead cams and a 8000 rpm
>> redline.
>>
>> GM is still dogging it, cutting corners and overpricing Corvettes to
>> their naive customers.
>>
>> Vito
>>
>>
> How about not doing it that way? KISS.
>
> I can recall thinking that way when I was hung up on formula racing, my
> 911 and 914-6. Then I grew up and realized that it's the bottom line
that
> counts.
>
> But, should you want the needless sophistication, buy an SLR or CTS.
>
> Gosh Vito, if you yearn for something even more complex, go for an
> interference engine with a desmodromic cam. -- The ultimate! (oh yeah,
> the patent on that was developed by GM, now assigned to Delphi and is
> licensed for production to Daimler-Benz. Krauts did that stuff.)
>
> But, the 'greener' solution is one that doesn't waste energy turning a
> DOHC 32-v valvetrain.
>
> VVT is another matter though and you'll probably see GM doing more of
that
> in 2010.
Mercedes, BMW and ****sche build high-end cars and the odd SUV.
Ferrari/Lamborghini build exoticars that are impractical for everyday
use.
All the preceding are highly expensive to maintain and repair. GM designs
and builds mass-market cars, SUVs and trucks. Chevrolet has now developed
a
performance car that will run with anything on the market, for far less
money. And some blue-nose wants to trash it. Who cares? Not me.
AJM
'93 Ruby coupe, 6 sp (both tops)
|
