ANYTHING with a turbo Americans did it first and better

OK he knows something of what he's saying.... But lets find a kink in the chain oh there's plenty.

ON that EPROM or Electronic Read Only Memory; that was based on a german uhm... oh yeah Bosch system called Jettronic which mainly came in early porches...tsk tsk tsk sure GM had some run ins with this system but the cheap bastards didn't want to use it..... So there you go on that one!
2 The first Grand National and Mustang were carbureted.... The others used oh the Jetronic system....
3 Them SUPERCHIPS!!!! are none other than primitive systems that only modified the timing and fuel inrichment (via either the service module of the Ford or a daughterboard on GMs,) and maybe duty cycle  for an extra 50 bucks... Did they cancel out the early MAF systems which reduced VE no.... Did they switch the Map readings to use the full potential of Force induction no.... Lets go back to the past and see what the other people did that resembles that... OH yeah advance the distributor and put bigger jets on the carb...WELL DONE!

I was prepared for that remark on the last place. Back then those cars ran extremly rich or lean depending on the situation, and your emissions excuse is just a proposition that we should all go back to leaded gasoline... and smog filled mornings. One today's cars might have less miles per gallon that an old car the same vintage (because your car was runing extra lean releasing alot of NOx), but that is because they read TPS sensors, MAP sensors, some use Air velocity sensors even, O2 sensors, knock sensors, etc. etc. todays cars might not seem all that hot, but consider this they run a hell of a lot cleaner, back then if a car lets say an LT1 which had a primitve knock sensor it would do on of two things if it encounter knock. engage limp home modes or cool down the chamber with a liquid ( lots and lots of gas) The cars that you mentioned probably did the same thing....

Jettronic
fuel and timing
emissions

Three kinks one weak chain.....  
Department of Labor

THE MAZDA COMPANY IS THE ONLY CMPANY THAT Mass produced the Rotary engine , though there was a marine engine in american running a rotary engine for a while and the owner of those right is MOLLER(inventer of the air car).
The mazda early rotary engines and even through the 80s were 100 percent unreliable and had serious issues so bad you can buy a rotary case converted into a fish tank now days. (you go mazda). Lets also point out a mazda has never won a major road race in the world and it being the most raced car in the world I serouisly doubt that, when you consider how many magazines are Dedicated to the mustang in drag racen , Grand AM, Scca, etc etc, only time a mazda races is at mazda race way and racen other mazdas. FYI FORD OWNS MAZDA.
YES HARD TO BELIVE THAT WHEN THE PRODUCTION OF THE NEW RX8 CAME OUT THEY WANT STRAIGHT TO GM AND GOT THERE OLD BLUE PRINTS . ALSO INTRESTING NOTE HERE GUYS DRAG RACED A ROTARY ENGINE A WHILE BACK IN A THREE ROTOR SET UP NOTE THE HP NUMBER THEY CAME UP WITH 600HP THE VERY EXACT HP RATEN GM CAME UP WITH IN 1960s .
Though the RX8 in its self isnt impressive slower than GXP solstice or sky, Mustang gt, SS montecarlo , SS Impala . Also note the RX8 runs on high octane fuel and gets worse mpg than the V8s are getting and also note these are in full body cars not compact light weight car. Is there any wonder why Ford owns Mazda...  

FIRST OFF ITS EEPROM -ERASABLE ELECTRONIC READ ON MEMORY .
BOSCH HAS AND ALWAYS A PAWN NOT A INVENTER- BOSCH WAS CONTRACTED TO MAKE SOME OF GM THE EARLY OBD1 STUFF LATER WENT TO DELPI AND NOW SOMEONE ELSE. NOTICE BOSCH DOESNT MAKE A ECM FOR ANYONE ANY MORE HMMM WONDER WHAT THAT IS.
GM RAN THE FIRST MECHANICAL INJECTION SYSTEMS IN THE 1953 CORVETTES LONG BEFORE PORSCHE EVER DID.
- THE ELECTRONIC ECM PORSCHE DID COME UP WITH IN THE 80S WAS NON PROCESSOR BASED. NOT TRUE ECM TECHNOLOGY.
ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL BUICK GRAND NATIONALS WERE ECM TECHNOLOGY AND HAD EFI (THIS CAR INTRODUCED THE WORLD TO SEQUENTIAL FUEL INJECTION WHICH IS STILL RUN IN EVERY IMPORT DRAG CAR TODAY.) IN FACT THE BUICK GRAND NATIONALS WERE THE FIRST KNOWN V6 TO PULL 13S IN 1/4 WITH TRUE EFI SYSTEM STOCK OUT THE BOX. INTRESTIONG NOTE ON THE BUICK GRAND NATIONAL IN NHRA , THEY COULDNT CLASS THE CAR CUASE IT WAS A V6 WHICH GAVE IT A AUTOMATIC WEIGHT LOSS, BUT DIDNT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IT WAS RUNNING A POWER ADDER. THE BUICK V6 TURBO IN THE 80S DOMINATED ALOT OF V8S CUASE OF THIS ALOT OF FIGHTING ACCURED TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR POWER ADDERS ON SMALL DISPLACMENT CARS.
 ONE AND FINAL THING THE WORLDS FASTEST SIX CYLINDER DRAG CAR STILL BELONG TO THE BUICK GRAND NATIONAL IN THE NHRA.  

One reason the Buick Grand nationals still dominate any v6 import is due to The imports six cylinders that do race are inline motors which are less efficent than a V motor is. A Vmotor the piston are slight lay down which take over all inertia off the piston , where as a inline motor the entire weight of the piston and rod has to lifted back to TDC hence more parastic drag. The VW bug Motor got it right by laying the cylinder down and if you Dyno this motor with same compression ratio as other inline or Vfour motors you would find that it makes more hp . Though thats a dyno chart and not the full story problem with laying the pistons down is Excessive material used in maken the block which increase weight and inablity to install in configuration.  

First, let me say that I normally don't get involved in these internet forum grudge matches. Second, I used to be a die hard V8 american muscle guy. I've owned and wrenched on v8's from 3 different decades. I've also owned other various small displacement american cars, along with some imports. Now, down to buisness...

Godspeed: congratulations on being able to find and read information that will support your side of the argument that you started, while blindly ignoring everything else. It shows two things, your age and your ignorance.

You unwisely compare Corvettes to Subarus. Thats like comparing a top fuel dragster to a monster truck. Sure, you can get close to the same amount of hp out of them, but they are (by design) two completely different types of vehicles. Corvettes are, by design, lightweight 2 seat american supercars. WRX's are, by design, a high powered 4 door sedan meant for hauling people. The Corvette has nearly triple the displacement of the Subie, and that will always tip the scales in its favor. If you want to make comparisons, do it evenly. Otherwise its pointless blathering.

The other thing you need to realize is that the US and Asia are two vastly different countries. We, with our wide open spaces, built big cars with big engines with lots of power. They, with smaller cities, tighter streets, and lots of people, built smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient cars. Not because they didn't have the ability to build a big car with a big engine, the need just wasn't there. Like they say, neccecity is the mother of invention. Why build a Cadillac when it wouldn't fit down the street?

I don't think anyone here cares who built the first turbo. I don't think it matters. There is no prize involved here. If you're looking for bragging rights, I don't think you personally would have any share in that. I don't get what your angle is.

My own personal thoughts on this whole thread is that you are a young man who's been doing a lot of reading and came here to do some import bashing. Its entirely fine that you are proud of the cars that our great nation has built, and I'm right there with you. If I could afford to build and stock my dream garage, imports would fill only a small corner. But, blind nationalism is a stupid way to live life. There is nothing wrong with admitting that someone (or some country) can do something better than we can. Who did what first and/or better is pointless when it happened so far in the past and those that were actually involved in the process have long since shuffled off the mortal coil.  

Let me add some things for clarification.

According to wikipedia, the turbocharger was first invented (and patent applied for) by a Swiss engineer in 1905. They were later used on steam ships in the 1920's.

In 1962 GM did indeed have the first mass produced vehicles with turbochargers, the Cutlass and the Corvair. However, both turbo engines were dropped within a couple of years because of reliability issues. So yes, they started it, but at the same time they apparently didn't do a very good job.

BMW brought the turbo back into mass production in 1973, with Porsche following in 1974. GM didn't re-enter the market untill 1978 with the Regal, which, oddly enough is the same year Mitsubishi put forth the turbocharged Lancer, and we all know what that started. Ford turbo'd the Mustang in 1979.

Would you like me to continue using non-biased information to blow holes in your rant, or shall I stop now?  

RE: "One reason the Buick Grand nationals still dominate any v6 import is due to The imports six cylinders that do race are inline motors which are less efficent than a V motor is. A Vmotor the piston are slight lay down which take over all inertia off the piston , where as a inline motor the entire weight of the piston and rod has to lifted back to TDC hence more parastic drag. The VW bug Motor got it right by laying the cylinder down and if you Dyno this motor with same compression ratio as other inline or Vfour motors you would find that it makes more hp . Though thats a dyno chart and not the full story problem with laying the pistons down is Excessive material used in maken the block which increase weight and inablity to install in configuration."

This is by far the most retarded thing you have said thus far.  The reason a V6 would be preferred over a L6 would be space.  A V6 is much shorter then a L6.  That's why there are front wheel drive cars with a v6, a v6 is almost as short as a I4.  But that's it.  A L6 is a much simpler more efficient design then a v6.  Less parts, less vibration especially considering secondary balance,and hence more efficiency in a L6.  

Ok so on to the main argument you say that gravity has significant effects.  What you seem to forget is that a engine assembly is pretty well balanced.  If it wasn't it would rotate itself until death you dolt.  Because it is balanced it doesn't matter if the engine is upside down, vertical, horizontal, diagonal, it doesn't matter.  And even if it did the piston moves down also as well as up.  So there would be a net force of 0

Let's crunch some numbers really quickly just to see if your flawed theory would really have any significance.  Lets take a L6 engine for example, we'll say a RB26DETT.  The rb engine in this case has a stroke of 73.7mm which equals .0737m.  And we'll also say this engine is happily revving at 7000rpm.  So the average piston speed will be

stroke * 2 (the piston goes up and down in one rev) * rpm

.0737m*2*(7000rpm/60min/s)= 17.2m/s  

now lets find the average piston acceleration.  This number will vary widely since your piston is stopping and accelerating with a lot of force.  But we can get an idea of the magnitude of accelerative forces will look like at near tdc.  So

[da]=dv/dt
average acceleration on downstroke= (17.2*(7000/60 *2))/ 9.8= 400 g's.  Where the accelerative force of gravity equals 1g.  So really how much does does 1g really matter compared to 400g's.  It would be very insignificant.  

That's about a quarter percent change.  Let us put that into perspective.  Now if your car makes a hundred horsepower and you fart near the intake of the car and you get a quarter percent increase in power.  You would then make .25 horsepower more.  That's nothing, not noticeable, not significant.  

Duuuuude your a genius...  

TARD AGAIN YOU DONE LISTEN TO WHAT I WRITE. ACTUALY THE WANKEL PATENTS ARE 100 PERCENT OWNED BY GENERAL MOTORS NO OTHER MANUFACTURE HAS THESE RIGHTS. ALSO GM AQUIRED THESE IN THE 50S NOT IN THE 70S.
If you know anyting alot of what gm does is research and development for other smaller auto companies . DELPHI is currently in the news right now read up on it and learn what this company did about alot of GM technology selling it off to HONDA, TOYOTA, NISSAN ETC FOR EXAMPLE THE CONSTANT DRIVE TRANSMISSION THAT GM WENT TO COURT OVER DUE TO TOYOTA USEN IT .  

FIRST OFF my statment did talk about the inablity to put a flat motor into any configuration.
NOW IM AS GIDDY AS A SCHOOL GIRL YOU BROUGHT THE WORD BALANCE UP. Reason is a flat motor has no need for external or internal Harmonic balancers due to the motor is BALANCED. Note just the mer act of reduction of a 10 pound harmonic balancer is a higher hp gaine over standerd V or Inline motors. Yes you are some what right about piston inertia being slightly less and not alot less but its still a act of superior efficency which in turns creates long engine life and hp.
Lets put this in prospective IF I FART there is Methane gas released ,that in turn make more hp. Actualy Gaseous Engines is the futur due to the ablit to switch from METHANE, PROPANE(CHEMICAL MAKE UP OF PROPANE IS 90PERCENT METHANE),HYDROGEN ETC.
All of these gases can be harvested and put to use with zero or no need of a chemist. Intresting note about Hydrogen car the first to pull 150mph pass in Bonneville was a old school AC shelby.  

Harley Davidson motor cycles today still hold the worlds TOP LAND SPEED RECORD AND WORLDS FASTEST 1/4 MILE DRAG MOTOR CYCLE. Intresting note when the NHRA intergrated the Domestic drag bikes with the imports they had to weight down the Domestics by 30 pounds to make racen some what even. V motors are superior to inline motors.  

The grand nationals were TRUE ECM TECHNOLOGY and was the first to run turbos with SEQUENTIAL FUEL INJECTIONS. ALL YOU COMPACT IMPORT CURRENTLY RUN IN THE IMPORT DRAGS SEQUENTIAL FUEL INJECTION.  

You are correct where you say that h4 is pretty well balanced but it has a good amount of secondary imbalance, it is more balanced then a I4 but not more then a flat 6 or a inline 6, or even v6 where these are very balanced, more balanced then a v6.  So if we don't consider space, a L6 is a better engine then a V6.  A L6 is inherently balanced with a powerstroke every 120 degrees.  Making a v6 do that is a hell of a lot harder and usually has to alternate intervals to achiever 360 degrees.  It is really dependent on the amount of cylinders you have.  But when it comes to 6 cylinders, inline or flat is the best.  

And yes i think we understand the grand national was pretty cool, only the 1987 version was and the pre 1987's lacked power for a turbo 3.8L.  In 1985 toyota had a 3L inline na engine that put out 200hp where the 1985 version grand national was a 3.8 turbo that put out 180 hp.  Two years after the grand national ended the rb26 that i spoke of earlier put down more horsepower with 1.2 liters less.  

We have an engineer tell John Deere why he's wrong and farmer John calls him a "tard" and brings up more crap. Cwytt thanks for your input. I think its best to ignore him he wont listen he'll most likely go to his local 1/4 mile trak and find another redneck to agree with him and make a hero of himself. There's a difference between this forum and others; here you have many options to what you want to talk about from formula 1 to Rally. We don't condemn others or start an thread by saying "You guys are STUPID! BLAH BLAH BLAH, NO YOU'RE WRONG! BLAH BLAH BLAH!" Even I admit when I'm wrong here. Godspeed are you an egineer? NO, don't argue with them they understand the logic behing physics all your testimonials don't matter *** compared to what this guy can do.

ON a final note go back to your forums. You've lost. here we go by hard numbers and the enthuisast spirit for speed, not bravado and talking ***

I suggest no one replies to whatever this guy writes next its just a waste of time.  
Department of Labor