Hey, look at what I found:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm
Supposedly will replace our 5.0's sometime in the future, problem is we'll have no real use for headers,H-pipes or duals - can anybody say "button for engine revving sound at the stoplights" :hick:
Thats interesting, but I bet it won't sound like a HO 5.0...
Very interesting, but that one with the wheels looks kinds complicated and would likely be hella expensive to produce.
I can't see it being very durable, either - those rollers would undoubtedly become caked with carbon or gunk, and they'd literally press it into the sides of the engine.
So many more "little" moving parts.
I would think that there would be much less of that gunk in that engine, and I read it has a lot less moving parts than a traditional engine. I'm curious as to how it will perform in a real life application. Until then, 5.0 will go, to quote one of our members' name.
Just wait for GM to buy the rights and do nothing with it. (relapse of the tossel)
GM would find a way to put pushrods in it I'm sure.
If it made the engine more efficient, lighter, smaller, and cheaper, why not? (Not like it's possible, there's no cam, I just don't get why everyone hates pushrod. It's actually newer technology than OHC, and has less parasitic loss)
Anyway, I was hinting at what happened the last time a rotary engine design came about. GM bought the production/development rights, couldn't make it work, and shelved it until they sold the rights to whoever wanted it.
www.dynacam.com (http://"www.dynacam.com")
Here's another one.
I don't think they actually bought the rights to the tossel, they just bought rights to develop, manufacture and sell tossel's design. Mazda has a long history of using tossels (including the RX/8) and there are a few motorcycles and snowmobiles out there that used 'em as well. I think there may even have been a tossel chainsaw...
As for pushrods, it does not matter how compact and efficent GM makes a pushrod engine, they have a reputation for being old and crude, so people don't buy them. After all, if Honda can sell you an Accord with a sophisticated multi-valve aluminum DOHC V6 for, say $20k, then Chevy should be able to sell you a simple, two-valve, cast iron pushrod V6 Impala for thousands less. The problem is that GM does not sell its simpler cars for less money, it sells them for the same (and often more) money and young new car buyers want the best technology their money can buy. Smooth, modern engine or old, crude engine? The choice to many is already made in their minds.
Now, that's not saying pushrod engines are bad, and it's not even saying that they have no place in modern times - Chrysler's spectacularly successful Hemi engine is a pushrod design and so is the V10 in the Viper, but Chrysler did a better job of marketing it. Chrysler has a reputation for the bleeding edge and giving the customers something new and exciting, GM has a reputation for old, outdated technology and giving the customers vehicles that GM thinks are "good enough" (and so does Ford).
Yeah, the LS7 makes over 500 horsepower, and the Z06 Corvette that gets that engine is the best Corvette ever, but Corvettes alone do not a car company make, and until GM gets the message and starts building cars to compete with the best of the imports instead of cars that have trouble competing against 10-year-old imports their market share will continue to decline. People are not making a mental connection between a $70k Corvette and a $15k Cobalt. Aside from the Corvette GM has absoltuely no desirable cars - everything they sell is outclassed by the imports in virtually every category (and so is Ford - aside from the Mustang and GT Ford has no compelling products, though at least Ford is trying with the new Fusion - let's hope it does better than the predictably unpopular Five Hundred). GM and Ford both have put all their eggs in the truck basket - someting that could prove devastating in this $3+/gallon world we now live in. Meanwhile not only has Chrysler snuck ringht on by, but so has Hyundai and Kia. And the Chinese are coming as well. It's survival of the fittest, and GM and Ford had better both start working out...
They will. Ford hasn't been around for a hundred years because it doesn't know which cars to make at which time.
This last decade was just for the fun of it then?
"Let's loose some market share, just for kicks."
Just like Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Studebaker, Packard, AMC, etc...
Past success does not guarantee future success - in fact, in GM and Ford's cases it seems to almost be an obstacle...
*warning*
Thread derailment a possibility
Agreed, for the most part. Studebaker is actually still kicking, in the form of Avanti, who seems to have made a complete turnaround since last year. There are plans for a 2006 Avanti, as well as a Studebaker SUV/SUT on the horizon. They also have an SVO division (sounds familiar, no?) building a Lister.
Personally, I think they should have stayed dead. :yuck:
(http://www.avantimotors.com/images/images/lister/listerbig2.jpg)
(http://www.avantimotors.com/images/images/2005avanti/2005avbig6.jpg)
(http://www.avantimotors.com/images/images/2005avanti/2005avbig4.jpg)
(http://www.avantimotors.com/images/images/studebaker/studebig7.jpg)
(http://www.avantimotors.com/images/images/studebaker/xutbig02.jpg)
Now you can return to your thread. :hick: